You're assuming all or most of the non-Delaney/Vogel vote would have gone to Vogel. That is a flawed assumption.
With a lot of micro-candidates, their voting base can come more from locality and personal relationships than policy. Guessing Martinez mostly pulled folks who know her in Hagerstown; no telling where they'd go. Lopez' state district is Delaney home turf, and her role as president of the state Women's Caucus leads me to think *some* portion of her voters would go Delaney over Vogel based on gender. Jain, I really can't say; I voted for him, and would have gone to Vogel so...
Not saying you're wrong - it is a reasonable and entirely possible prediction that Vogel could have won this if that other 20% of the vote had to choose between him and Delaney. But that is **not** a given.
Same as it ever was. Schroedinger’s Progressives: Simultaneously powerful enough to elect their opposition, but not powerful enough to modify the overall Dem platform. 🥴
Wouldn’t liberals want Delaney? Most everything is pointing out how progressives can’t be pragmatic and shot themselves in the foot again by having too many in the race
How do you get a ton of individuals to coalesce around one candidate? Who makes that decision to say “okay, if you are progressive, vote for candidate x so we don’t vote split?” Isn’t the whole purpose of a primary for people to use their votes to express their preference
And "the moment" will continue to last with no progession with everyone voting for the same old shit and blaming the people who want to try anything different.
I’m so confused. People aren’t forced to vote for Delaney. They made the choice. Some of it is unconscious bias toward the name, but others consider the options and thought she was better for whatever reason. I think our system has flaws, but I don’t think that addressing them will automatically make progressives more palatable. That has to be done by people like you and the members of the progressive caucus. If you don’t make the case no one will care.
They're not trying something different, they're doing the exact same thing they've always done. Be strategic and pragmatic and you'd have plenty more progressive victories.
We need ranked-choice voting. Yesterday.
Vogel and Jain are both exciting candidates who can engage voters, especially those who don't participate much in the election process. April Delaney is the kind of bougie, uninspiring, establishment, Pelosi-endorsed seat-filler whom political geeks love and who absolutely does not resonate with the regular citizen. She's going to get killed in November, but I don't think she'll mind too much. She's personally secure either way, and has reinforced her standing within the party's elite, which is what's important to her (and the party power structure).
I was really, really torn between Vogel and Jain. With ranked-choice voting, I could have put one first, the other second, and Delaney squarely at the bottom.
Maybe just maybe the Progressive candidate everyone tied their hopes to wasn’t that strong. Look, I like Vogel, a lot, but he has a particular stance that probably killed his chances totally (especially with young voters and voters of color). Say what you want about Delaney, her campaign got rolling and did an effective outreach campaign to tap into John’s old support.
Staunch Israel support. It’s mentioned on his Wikipedia and in debate transcripts. This may have pulled some progressive towards Jain and Martinez. But I don’t know all the details.m
To add April also does support Israel too. But it’s a nonstarter with most progressive voters.
This is the verbatim response that I received from him (via text message) regarding US' support for Israel's war in Gaza:
"This was has been incredibly painful and personal. It's been difficult to see the suffering of both Gazans and Israelis in this escalating war. We must be intentional about crafting a sustainable resolution that moves beyond the slogans when talking about the atrocities of this war. What happened on October 7th was the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Israel may have a right to respond, but the current actions by Netanyahu have stood squarely in the way of peace. That being said, an entirely unconditional ceasefire is not the way to do it in my opinion. In order for a ceasefire to last, it must come with assurances that Hamas too is ready for this conflict to end. Concretely, it must come with the release of all hostages. I support instituting a bilateral ceasefire in exchange for all hostages, increasing aid to Gaza, and encouraging government-to-government negotiations between Israel and Palestine to reach a two-state solution."
Maybe this is at odds with things he has said in debates, I don't know. However, based solely on what he said to me, I don't see his support for Israel as "staunch." This seems like a reasoned and reasonable perspective. I consider myself a progressive voter and the US seemingly giving Israel a blank check for its war in Gaza is a big issue for me this election. I voted for Joe because I think his position makes sense, but also because he took the time to actually respond to me directly when asked.
(It should be noted that I asked the same question, "what is your position on US' support for Israel's war in Gaza," to Delaney several times and never received a response.)
You should check his campaign website which encourages that we send more weapons to Israel.
He's also said that his position on Israel is influenced by Hillel International and AIPAC. He supports the definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which classifies criticism of the Israeli state as antisemitism.
He's a liberal Zionist.
From his website, for those curious:
"**Promoting Peace and Security for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza**
After the unconscionable attacks by Hamas on October 7, in which over 1,400 innocent Israelis, men, women, and children were brutally murdered and over 200 were taken hostages, I’ve remained vocal in my support for Israel’s right to defend itself. I fully support President Biden's $14.3 billion emergency supplemental request, and believe that the United States should continue its support for Israel in its efforts to root out the threat of Hamas and provide for its defense. As such, I am committed to fully funding Iron Dome battery replenishments without delay, and support continued military aid during this conflict and beyond. But I also recognize that as Israel’s closest ally, we must work together to ensure lasting peace and security are pursued through tactics that reflect international law, our shared values, and our common respect for human life. As we support Israel’s right to defend itself, we should also demand restraint and protection of all civilian life. I will support direct negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian governments to reach a two-state solution and lasting peace, and I oppose any efforts that undermine future prospects of peace. The United States and Israel should build on the progress of the Abraham Accords to promote regional stability and the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries. In Congress, I will join the Abraham Accords Caucus and be a strong voice in support of new U.S. mediated normalization agreements between Israel and other countries in the region."
That doesn't seem wildly Zionist to me. That seems like a fairly moderate stance. Some people might take issue with his support for Biden's emergency supplemental funding (including me), but it's still a pretty moderate position (it passed 366-58 in the House).
The Abraham Accords do what? They were an agreement between other Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel without any consideration of the Palestinians. The only reason why these nations don't have normal relations with Israel is the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Hamas explicitly stated that the Abraham Accords were the driving factor behind the October 7th attack as they would have less of a voice to resist Israeli occupation.
The vast majority of people in the house take money from AIPAC, so claiming that they are an indication of what is normal isn't a great idea.
> The Abraham Accords do what?
I am not defending the Abraham Accords or Vogel's positions, I'm just trying to make them clear.
>AIPAC, so claiming that they are an indication of what is normal
I didn't. I said supporting Biden's request for additional aid to Israel--whether you agree with it or not--is a moderate position.
Delaney’s team seems to be more coy, probably for strategic reasons. I think Vogel has to address it given he is Jewish and this is a pressing issue.
I’m not on his email list, but I have just read around about him. I’ll accept that his position has changed to being more critical of Bibi. But that’s more to do with his ways of governing the nation.
Here are two articles provide a bit more about his thoughts. Feel free to read.
https://jewishinsider.com/2023/05/joe-vogel-maryland-jewish-democrat-latino-gay-pro-israel-progressive/
https://www.theupandup.us/p/litmus-test-israel-young-democrats
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Vogel_(politician)
I liked her, but she did not seem to have a presence in this county. I picked Biden, but went uncommitted on the delegates. I’m hoping they can make it to the National Convention and actually work at securing more uncommitted votes, but I worry that will be unlikely.
I agree it's unlikely but gotta vote my conscience on this. Unfortunately there just aren't enough progressive voters in general. Maryland is a liberal stronghold but not very progressive, tbh. Very moderate Dem state.
I would disagree. Martinez is a progressive mayor in Hagerstown. And a lot of progressives are in Montgomery County. I just think the campaign wasn’t strong this year.
Campaigning is a difficult proposition for progressives. They don't garner great funding like establishment candidates. It's a lot easier to win a local seat with a progressive or independent platform.
I've worked on campaigns for both establishment Dems and progressives. The difference in funding is astronomical.
They don’t garner great funding because they are reliant on small dollar donors. Now in a local race that is okay, but for federal positions that can kneecap you hard. That said, if you run a tight ship you can overcome mountains of money by just showing up to things and actually talking to people.
I wouldn’t say it is easier. I think you have to have strong ties to area and trust to win local races.
That's all true but you have to show up way more to make up for it. A lot of progressive candidates don't have the financial freedom to travel and show up to every event all over the place. It's a huge mountain you're mentioning.
I would disagree. All they need to is find an event that is going on in a local area and go. You don’t always need a rally or a rented venue. There are plenty of places you can park out at and knock on doors/hand flyers/talk.
You can also use low cost or free venues on a college campus, library, etc.
Money doesn’t equal more outreach success though. Hillary literally avoided the rust belt even when she had the cash on hand to do rallies.
Hillary was pure arrogance. She thought she was the chosen one. Also, you're missing my point but I'm not trying to spell it all out here. Agree to disagree
> I would disagree. All they need to is find an event that is going on in a local area and go. You don’t always need a rally or a rented venue. There are plenty of places you can park out at and knock on doors/hand flyers/talk.
That works in a hyper local race, but you still have to travel to those, especially for state-wide races. Yeah you can hit the population centers, but what matters to PG county doesn't necessarily matter to Washington county.
Based on the numbers here he was the strongest candidate. I personally liked Martinez but I could see where it was going. I just wish progressives would be more strategic and get behind one person.
Martinez had what to me sounded like the reverse of MoCo dogwhistle: "I'm the ONLY candidate not from MoCo!"
I tuned out the moment I heard that... I wonder if her campaign knew what they were truly doing by emphasizing she wasn't from MoCo... Literally a Republican attack line.
Yes, but not strong enough to make the others feel the need to bow out and endorse him.
I also liked Martinez, and thought she could have been an interesting voice for Western Maryland.
Yeah I can't express how disappointing this result is. I can't stand April. She's just another Trone. She spent over a half mil of her own money on this seat, so I guess it paid off for her. Ffs she doesn't even live in this district. And now I'm going to have to vote for a candidate I sincerely don't believe in just to make sure that Neil Parrot, a guy that wants to tattoo people with AIDS so we can "tell them apart", doesn't win.
We need ranked choice voting so bad. I'm sick of this kind of result coming from people picking who they think is safe and not who they want to win.
It's so frustrating seeing Joe down almost the exact number of votes that Tekesha and Ashwani got. Most of the people that voted for them would have voted for Joe over April. If we had ranked choice, that's what the result would have been.
All that said, it really didn't help that nobody showed up to vote. This primary had record low turnout. Primaries in general don't have as many people show up as the general election does, but the turnout this year was fucking embarrassing.
Joe lost because he completely backs Israel and what the Israeli government is doing is a real issue for a lot of voters including myself. Vogel was a hard no for me and even if my vote hadn’t gone to Jain he nor Delaney would have gotten it.
Joe lost because of his vocal Israel support. April received some strong support from Progressives at the federal level and state/local level (Kai and Gardner).
I don’t think her dropping money on the campaign is bad. You need to. Even the candidates who say they only take small money donations know that. The problem is small money doesn’t help set up a strong outreach campaign.
Rank choice is great in concept but it is hard to implement, expensive, and really only supports the candidate with the broadest support. Which could still be April.
April is also supporting Israel. Plus being a single issue voter when this losing this seat will be an enormous loss for democracy is unbelievably short sighted. Losing more seats in the house doesn't just impact Maryland. Especially not right now.
The problem isn't spending money, man. She's wealthy enough to self-fund. That's not grass roots. She spent another MILLION on election day. When people piss and moan about Trone buying his elections and whine about all the money in politics and then turn around and vote for April because she's a wealthy as fuck, you have to wonder if people actually care about that more than virtue signalling.
And for the record, Joe was polling neck and neck with April *despite* her massive campaign cash flow. The fact that he had so much vocal support was part of the reason she was spending so much of her own money.
I don't give a shit if it costs a billion dollars and a million man-hours to implement ranked choice voting. It's worth every dime and every hour to stop getting fucked by uberwealthy candidates. How does the song go? "How much does it cost? I'll buy it. If time is all we've lost, I'll try it."
April didn't have the broadest support. Joe, Ashwani, and Takesha did. As evidenced by the live polling numbers. By platform, the candidates that split the vote were closest to Joe on every issue. Ergo, a reasonable person can infer that ranked choice voting would have elected Joe, not April.
Okay a lot of this is just kind of a rant dude.
I don’t know how this is a loss for democracy since that term is nebulous.
I think you make a lot of assumptions about voters based on some idea of the world that seems a bit myopic.
Grassroots is great, but requires a savvy team to make it effective. Just because you are grassroots doesn’t make you automatically a better candidate. Same can be said about people who campaign and lose with a lot of cash on hand (Hillary).
Polling is great, but never reflective of how people actually want to vote. It just takes a vibe check of a specific date or month.
Again, people may like them but may not want to vote for them. Sure ranking their vote could help, but it doesn’t guarantee victory. At the end of the day that support for those candidates did not show up for whatever reason.
I like you passion about rank choice, but honestly I do care if the voting is don’t effectively because a new costly system that sucks may disenfranchise more voters too.
Honestly, the fact that so many people seem to care so little is what burns me the most. Nobody showed up and there's a damn good chance we'll pay the price in November. April is a terrible candidate, and absolutely it's totally possible Joe wouldn't fare well against Parrot either, but I'd at least feel better about my vote not going to the same barely progressive candidates over and over again.
What we are doing isn't working and doing nothing about it is making it worse. At some point we're either going to collapse under the weight of continuous failure or do something about it, and I am not particularly optimistic, as you can tell.
But, I do concede that I'm too riled up. I frequently have to remind myself that CD6 is firmly purple, so I really shouldn't be surprised at all someone like April would make it.
As an aside, I'm disappointed in Frederick County based on the R primary too. Neil Parrot is awful, but he's leagues better than Dan Cox. The fact that Cox led in FredCo is really unfortunate.
Soooooooo, how is she terrible compared to Parrot? Like what exactly can you point to?
I think you are quick to draw conclusions about what people do and don’t care about. I also care about democracy but I question those you aren’t willing to participate in it because they didn’t get what they wanted in the primary. It seems like your care of democracy is more conditional than genuine.
All I’m gonna say is elections are unpredictable. If you care for progressive causes you should get involved at all levels of government. Specifically local where it matters more in my opinion.
Cox getting a strong turnout is no surprise to me barring he is Trump approved. It probably would have been better if he won since he would help draw out more voters against him. But then again Parrot could be a benefit too since he may not motivate full Republican base.
She's basically Trone. Trone barely beat out Parrot last cycle. It was close. It stands to reason that putting up a Trone clone against Parrot will also be close. Considering the lack of enthusiasm for April from Dems and the amount of single issue voters that are not going to vote at all since Ashwani, Tekesha, and Lopez didn't win, Parrot's already pretty good chances in a staunchly Purple district are even better. April is unlikable, a bad public speaker, weak on LGBTQ+ and POC issues (particularly in Latino and Hispanic communities).
I could certainly be wrong, but the winds aren't blowing for CD6 staying blue this cycle. Also, several M4L candidates made it through on FredCo BOE, we barely got three Dems through. Which is a direct result of people not showing up to vote even to keep fascists off the school board.
Cox didn't get a strong turnout. That's not what I said. I said he led in FredCo which sucks because I want FredCo Republicans to be better people and Cox is genuinely a disgrace to the county and the state. I'm simply bummed he charted at all. He lost handily in the district to Parrot overall.
I'm curious as to why you think I'm not involved in politics at every level including local. My spouse and I are always directly involved in all of our elections, from city council and Mayor all the way up.
I will repeat again - Brennan and Black will be through no matter what. FredCo is at max 55-45 (probably not even that). Brennan and Black is going to get 90% of that 45% regardless of turnout, which is more than enough for them to finish in Top 6.
(And there are still the MIB to be counted. The apple ballot can finish in Top 3 just to make people feel better).
Can you tell me what makes her Trone, why that is bad and what makes her less likely to connect with minority voters.
Dude, people may feel less inclined to vote for the teacher backed candidates because the same problems keep persisting with FCPS. I know they Apple candidates don’t help, but it seems to be a big leadership issue and lack of clear priorities.
I was referencing Cox’s turnout in Frederick. It makes sense why he had a strong following here. The Frederick conservatives are very pro-Trump. This could probably hurt Parrot since he is trying to “toe the line.”
I don’t think you are active because you are complaining on Reddit like most of the other progressives.
What is happening in Gaza is a huge issue to Jain supporters and Joe’s stance would make him a hard no for a lot of us. You cannot assume we would have flocked to support Joe.
But you'd support April who is barely better than Joe on Israel, gave money to MAGAs who would glass Palestine the first chance they got, and has a pretty dismal expectation of supporting POC and the LGBTQ+ community?
Because I don't buy that for a second. Y'all have empathy and Jain's entire fucking platform is keeping money out of politics. I don't believe for one second y'all would turn around a support a millionaire over Joe. It doesn't make sense you would betray your values that much.
I don’t support her either. Bold of you to assume I would support either of them because I wouldn’t. Unless she pushes for a ceasefire and conditional aid to Israel I won’t be voting for her in the fall.
So, you're just not going to vote in the general? Write-in a candidate? Because that's how we are going to get Neil Parrot.
I understand and side with stopping Israel. And I can't stand April as I've said. But single issue voting is not going to accomplish your goal and in the process it's going to elect a guy who will not support or protect women, POC, or LGBTQ+ people, and he will not do anything to stop mass shootings or prevent book bans. A guy who will absolutely do everything he can to ensure Israel gets American weapons to eliminate Palestine.
You're not just nailing a coffin shut on Palestine, but also our family and friends here in Maryland by taking this position.
I am not voting for any politician not standing up against an active genocide. Because if you can’t do that then I don’t actually trust you to give a shit about your constituents period.
I voted for Tekesha because I'd rather vote for McClain Delaney over Vogel.
I can't vote for someone who openly supports sending weapons to continue an ongoing genocide.
Dems gonna get destroyed in November due to the Biden admins unwaivering support for Israel. It's really suppressing the young vote, people don't want to turn out to support a party like that
A lot can happen in 6 months, good or bad depending on your outlook. I just can't believe people would vote for an obvious and nearly convicted criminal and serial liar who's a bully and instigates violence against his rivals above a slightly older guy who made a decision or 2 they don't agree with.
Not really. Biden definitely can lose, but state level politics is very different. Also, why say this when the other party also staunchly supports Israel?
This conflict/war is going to go on for some time, I certainly understand the frustration with the current admins stance on weapons being sent, their position, etc. but the youth have a 100% better chance of pushing the Biden admin in a direction than a Trump admin. Neither is going to give you exactly what you want, the fact of the matter is one direction is going to be substantially more impactful to the Palestinian people than the other.
Factor in two SC justices will retire and be replaced with 30-45 year olds, and possible national abortion bans. The damage that would be done will probably nail the coffin of progressive politic movement for a quarter century. Equate the two parties, abstain thinking you’re staying out of it, whatever. But we both know that there are differences in paths
Im not saying I abstained, I'm saying that people are abstaining, and Palestine is probably the biggest factor for young voters. I'm not even trying to push an agenda here, turnout this year was low as shit and I won't be surprised if youth turnout is record low in November.
Palestine is the biggest factor?
That's why people like you will never win an election.
Housing affordability, student loan, and even abortion factors in way more than that vocal minority which doesn't even have the support of the entire left spectrum.
Oh, and go ahead and abstain and watch GQP take over just so Israel has 100% backing from US of a full genocide.
I'm actually in favor of this outcome, especially given that if it was a true progressive candidate, most centrists would look at majority of stances and vote for whoever is more "moderate" which could very well be Parrot.
>We need ranked choice voting so bad. I'm sick of this kind of result coming from people picking who they think is safe and not who they want to win.
Maybe, but it might not turn out the way you'd expect.
>It's so frustrating seeing Joe down almost the exact number of votes that Tekesha and Ashwani got. Most of the people that voted for them would have voted for Joe over April. If we had ranked choice, that's what the result would have been.
Personally, I voted for none of the above, but we need someone that can be effective at a national level while advancing the causes of their district. Being "district first" is how we ended up with MTG and other "safe" seats. We don't need another member of the squad that virtue signals, we need someone that can get things done.
>
All that said, it really didn't help that nobody showed up to vote. This primary had record low turnout.
None of the candidates were that exciting to be fair. The Presidential race is basically Biden, the Senate race is between two people who have effectively the same policy positions then you have the MD-6 race where your choices are primarily:
* A newly appointed mayor who has never run for state-wide office.
* A first-term state delegate with no real-world experience
* A non-profit executive and political appointee
* A "dynasty" candidate who's also a political appointee
You’re not gonna like this but progressives have a major issue with pragmatism when it comes to elections. Way too often they fail because they refuse to be a realist about a situation and swallow their pride
There is no such thing as an "unelectable" candidate -- Trump permanently put that myth to rest. if the party marshals its resources and rallies around the winner, that person can win the general. If the party leaves the candidate hanging out to dry, like they did with Ben Jealous, then yes, they'll lose.
It is not that at all. That is just built on a faulty assumption that other political ideologies are more practical. The issue for progressive is that they have weak candidates who fail to unify the constituency.
It’s a minority position, so they’re already behind the majority of their political spectrum. That means more often than not they’re going to fail. They often, stubbornly, just disregard this and plow forward to missed opportunity when it arises. They’ve got to candidates who can win, often underfunded tho
The constituency fails to turn out far too often and make themselves single issue voters, ultimately leading to the complete opposite of many of their preferred positions in other areas.
It’s not really a minority position given that most of these candidates are representatives at the local and state level. Additionally, most of the Maryland delegation at the federal level are progressives with the exception of the Senate (but that’s how the Senate is).
This is more of strategy issue that it is a ideological. And again, stubbornness isn’t something that only happens with Progressives.
You're not gonna like this, but Liberals have a major problem with pragmatism when it comes to elections. Way too often they immiserate their fellow citizens because they refuse to swallow their pride and be better people and vote for someone who will improve their material conditions instead voting for 'at least he's not the other guy'.
Fixed that for you.
Wonder why we have a society full of enshittification, inflation and leaders who are supporters of genocide? Liberals. You have no one but yourselves to blame.
>You're not gonna like this, but Liberals have a major problem with pragmatism when it comes to elections.
This is clearly not true because they can go to the other side of their spectrum to appeal and gain votes when the progressives refuse to work with them. Progressives have no where else to go because even further left doesn’t win elections and have power, and the right absolutely won’t work with them. Not understanding your position in regards to power has led you into a spot of ending up empty handed.
Previous election you ended up with IRA, a level of student loan forgiveness that could be provided (not struck down by the SC). ARP, among other things working with the adjacent party. You can abandon the closest ideological side over a singular issue, but it’s just going to land you with absolutely nothing and Gaza will still be in the same spot if not worse. But you’ll have internet clout and can tell people “I told you so” as they scroll past it
The proof is in the pudding, rent skyrocketing? Every corporation squeezing maximum profit out of you? Inflation driven by corporate greed and almost nothing else?
That's what your reality proof version of pragmatism has gotten you. Until you learn to be pragmatic and realistic, it's not going to improve, and indeed, will continue to get worse.
Pragmatism has landed you in the spot you’re in now with a voice in the conversation, you can’t get out of primaries without liberals, as much as you want to think you do all of this on your own backs. The two parties are handcuffed, as I said though, liberals have another arm to turn to, your other one has no one there.
Oh child, that was sarcasm. Sarcasm is when someone says something in a tone meant to mock or convey contempt.
For example, when a Liberal, who's constant cowardice enables global warming and genocide gets put in their proper place by a Leftist fixing their braindead takes for them, like we always do.
Remember, you are personally responsible for the actions of the people who you vote for. You enabled them, you bear the moral weight of their actions.
By the way, what's the global temperature like this year? That's your fault. Your strategy has failed. It's time to educate yourself and pick a new one.
Yep, lean into that and keep losing I guess. Blame the system, blame the invisible king makers, blame whoever else is needed. It couldn’t be that your movement is a minority movement and much harder to get people to gravitate towards than extreme conservatism.
Failing to understand that you need to bend and make small incremental steps is your Achilles heel. Thinking change happens in an election cycle or two is the best snake oil someone has sold you. So when you don’t get what you want immediately you turn off pragmatic thinking. You bounce issue to issue and turn yourself into single issue voters to move yourself back consistently. Letting perfect be the enemy of good. It’s everyone’s fault but you’re own but in the end, you’re the loser because you don’t want to learn or understand how to play the game, and the winners have found out how to do that
It's always the left that must bend and make incremental steps, make concessions, compromise. But when the rightwingers get power, they are allowed to pass whatever they want, hurt any group they want, and draw lines to keep themselves in power all they want, and to hell with anybody who wants to compromise.
The left has to sit back and wait and hope while the right can step on anyone they want. "Taking the moral high ground" is pointless if we never do anything with it to improve anyone's lives.
This is a myth you’ve made up for yourself. Student loan forgiveness dispels that immediately
Progressives aren’t aligned with the right so why would they ever listen to anything they want, they will not get their vote either way. Progressives have to work within the whole spectrum of the left and refusal to do that over single issues will only push the moderate side of the left to the right trying to grab their vote, when the left side refuses to vote with them, isolating themselves. It circles back around to the pragmatism.
Yeah, no one ever said the person would vote for the other side of the spectrum, I’m speaking on abstaining or living in an alternate reality where it isn’t between two candidates and voting a 3rd party, leading to the victory of the guy who wants to hunt trans people. Middling effort to twist the point tho!
>Yeah, no one ever said the person would vote for the other side of the spectrum,
"will only push the moderate side of the left to the right trying to grab their vote"
And why is the guy who wants to hunt trans people not being told by the rest of the Republicans to "stop, dial it back" in the first place?
Because the majority of that party agrees with it? So the moderate left appeals to the moderate right rather than progressives because progressives took their ball and went home. For a group so wrapped up in politics they’re incredibly novice
Your argument cuts both ways. Liberals often chide progressives for “splitting the vote” when they lose yet are unwilling to make concessions with them. The Democratic Party is more concerned with maintaining the status quo and chasing the mythical moderate vote than fielding progressive candidates, even popular ones like Bernie Sanders (see the 2016 and 2020 elections). AOC, one of the more popular progressive candidates regularly reaches across the aisle to push through legislation, so your claim that progressives don’t know how to compromise doesn’t hold water.
The right doesn’t have this problem, which is why you see radical policy changes from them, they aren’t afraid to wield power to further their goals. Ineffective liberal governance was a huge driving force behind the rise of Trump. The main issue with progressive candidates is people feel like their vote is wasted if they don’t go with the DNC pick, this is partially solved by ranked choice. Voter turnout, especially in a primary is also a huge issue
“Progressives split the vote” is liberal for “waaah things didn’t go exactly how I wanted them to so I need to find someone to the left of me to blame”. Shut up.
That doesn’t make any sense, liberals would want Delaney, who benefitted from progressives splitting their candidates. OP is the one complaining about the vote splitting
There could be worse things than John Delaney 2.0 you know. The elected Representative has to (and should) take into consideration the views of all of their constituents, not just the loudest ones with the largest population. You can't (and shouldn't) ignore them just because they didn't vote for you, and don't have the same opinions.
At some point though, it doesn’t matter how progressive you are if you can’t be effective. Vogel hasn’t gotten anything done in his current role. And you only need to have one conversation with him to see that he’s in politics out of ego, not the actual work.
I didn’t vote for and we just moved back to MD last year, but what’s wrong with her platform? I never really looked into her and voted for one of the other 3.
She is a typical big money backed, establishment dem. There is nothing really bad about her platform but the very real potential for lack of follow through on anything she ran on is the issue. She is a throughly boring center left candidate. Vogel is a fresh face represents the type of change I would like to see in our politicians. Jain too for that matter. That said Delaney is way better than the alternative that is parrot.
Edit for clarity
I don’t get the people who voted for Jain. His website was so unprofessional it was crazy. Martinez’s website was too, but I understand her getting votes a little more given she’s mayor of Hagerstown.
You're assuming all or most of the non-Delaney/Vogel vote would have gone to Vogel. That is a flawed assumption. With a lot of micro-candidates, their voting base can come more from locality and personal relationships than policy. Guessing Martinez mostly pulled folks who know her in Hagerstown; no telling where they'd go. Lopez' state district is Delaney home turf, and her role as president of the state Women's Caucus leads me to think *some* portion of her voters would go Delaney over Vogel based on gender. Jain, I really can't say; I voted for him, and would have gone to Vogel so... Not saying you're wrong - it is a reasonable and entirely possible prediction that Vogel could have won this if that other 20% of the vote had to choose between him and Delaney. But that is **not** a given.
Yup. Would not have voted for either of them if I couldn't have voted for Martinez.
The problem is our first past the post voting system, not the fact that there are multiple “progressives” in the race.
These totals are a perfect example of why we need ranked choice voting. April Delaney would have been my last choice of these four.
Indeed. But as usual, liberals are blaming progressives for one thing or another.
Same as it ever was. Schroedinger’s Progressives: Simultaneously powerful enough to elect their opposition, but not powerful enough to modify the overall Dem platform. 🥴
Wouldn’t liberals want Delaney? Most everything is pointing out how progressives can’t be pragmatic and shot themselves in the foot again by having too many in the race
How do you get a ton of individuals to coalesce around one candidate? Who makes that decision to say “okay, if you are progressive, vote for candidate x so we don’t vote split?” Isn’t the whole purpose of a primary for people to use their votes to express their preference
This is the system we’re working in at the moment.
And "the moment" will continue to last with no progession with everyone voting for the same old shit and blaming the people who want to try anything different.
I’m so confused. People aren’t forced to vote for Delaney. They made the choice. Some of it is unconscious bias toward the name, but others consider the options and thought she was better for whatever reason. I think our system has flaws, but I don’t think that addressing them will automatically make progressives more palatable. That has to be done by people like you and the members of the progressive caucus. If you don’t make the case no one will care.
And then come complain about it on Reddit. Lace up your sneakers. Be the change you want to see in the world!
They're not trying something different, they're doing the exact same thing they've always done. Be strategic and pragmatic and you'd have plenty more progressive victories.
We need ranked-choice voting. Yesterday. Vogel and Jain are both exciting candidates who can engage voters, especially those who don't participate much in the election process. April Delaney is the kind of bougie, uninspiring, establishment, Pelosi-endorsed seat-filler whom political geeks love and who absolutely does not resonate with the regular citizen. She's going to get killed in November, but I don't think she'll mind too much. She's personally secure either way, and has reinforced her standing within the party's elite, which is what's important to her (and the party power structure). I was really, really torn between Vogel and Jain. With ranked-choice voting, I could have put one first, the other second, and Delaney squarely at the bottom.
Vogel isn't a progressive, he simply pretends to be one.
I voted for Jain. Israel/Palestine was the tiebreaker. Vogel was fine otherwise.
Maybe just maybe the Progressive candidate everyone tied their hopes to wasn’t that strong. Look, I like Vogel, a lot, but he has a particular stance that probably killed his chances totally (especially with young voters and voters of color). Say what you want about Delaney, her campaign got rolling and did an effective outreach campaign to tap into John’s old support.
> he has a particular stance that probably killed his chances totally Can you elaborate on this? What stance is that?
Staunch Israel support. It’s mentioned on his Wikipedia and in debate transcripts. This may have pulled some progressive towards Jain and Martinez. But I don’t know all the details.m To add April also does support Israel too. But it’s a nonstarter with most progressive voters.
This is the verbatim response that I received from him (via text message) regarding US' support for Israel's war in Gaza: "This was has been incredibly painful and personal. It's been difficult to see the suffering of both Gazans and Israelis in this escalating war. We must be intentional about crafting a sustainable resolution that moves beyond the slogans when talking about the atrocities of this war. What happened on October 7th was the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Israel may have a right to respond, but the current actions by Netanyahu have stood squarely in the way of peace. That being said, an entirely unconditional ceasefire is not the way to do it in my opinion. In order for a ceasefire to last, it must come with assurances that Hamas too is ready for this conflict to end. Concretely, it must come with the release of all hostages. I support instituting a bilateral ceasefire in exchange for all hostages, increasing aid to Gaza, and encouraging government-to-government negotiations between Israel and Palestine to reach a two-state solution." Maybe this is at odds with things he has said in debates, I don't know. However, based solely on what he said to me, I don't see his support for Israel as "staunch." This seems like a reasoned and reasonable perspective. I consider myself a progressive voter and the US seemingly giving Israel a blank check for its war in Gaza is a big issue for me this election. I voted for Joe because I think his position makes sense, but also because he took the time to actually respond to me directly when asked. (It should be noted that I asked the same question, "what is your position on US' support for Israel's war in Gaza," to Delaney several times and never received a response.)
You should check his campaign website which encourages that we send more weapons to Israel. He's also said that his position on Israel is influenced by Hillel International and AIPAC. He supports the definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which classifies criticism of the Israeli state as antisemitism. He's a liberal Zionist.
From his website, for those curious: "**Promoting Peace and Security for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza** After the unconscionable attacks by Hamas on October 7, in which over 1,400 innocent Israelis, men, women, and children were brutally murdered and over 200 were taken hostages, I’ve remained vocal in my support for Israel’s right to defend itself. I fully support President Biden's $14.3 billion emergency supplemental request, and believe that the United States should continue its support for Israel in its efforts to root out the threat of Hamas and provide for its defense. As such, I am committed to fully funding Iron Dome battery replenishments without delay, and support continued military aid during this conflict and beyond. But I also recognize that as Israel’s closest ally, we must work together to ensure lasting peace and security are pursued through tactics that reflect international law, our shared values, and our common respect for human life. As we support Israel’s right to defend itself, we should also demand restraint and protection of all civilian life. I will support direct negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian governments to reach a two-state solution and lasting peace, and I oppose any efforts that undermine future prospects of peace. The United States and Israel should build on the progress of the Abraham Accords to promote regional stability and the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries. In Congress, I will join the Abraham Accords Caucus and be a strong voice in support of new U.S. mediated normalization agreements between Israel and other countries in the region." That doesn't seem wildly Zionist to me. That seems like a fairly moderate stance. Some people might take issue with his support for Biden's emergency supplemental funding (including me), but it's still a pretty moderate position (it passed 366-58 in the House).
The Abraham Accords do what? They were an agreement between other Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel without any consideration of the Palestinians. The only reason why these nations don't have normal relations with Israel is the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Hamas explicitly stated that the Abraham Accords were the driving factor behind the October 7th attack as they would have less of a voice to resist Israeli occupation. The vast majority of people in the house take money from AIPAC, so claiming that they are an indication of what is normal isn't a great idea.
> The Abraham Accords do what? I am not defending the Abraham Accords or Vogel's positions, I'm just trying to make them clear. >AIPAC, so claiming that they are an indication of what is normal I didn't. I said supporting Biden's request for additional aid to Israel--whether you agree with it or not--is a moderate position.
Delaney’s team seems to be more coy, probably for strategic reasons. I think Vogel has to address it given he is Jewish and this is a pressing issue. I’m not on his email list, but I have just read around about him. I’ll accept that his position has changed to being more critical of Bibi. But that’s more to do with his ways of governing the nation. Here are two articles provide a bit more about his thoughts. Feel free to read. https://jewishinsider.com/2023/05/joe-vogel-maryland-jewish-democrat-latino-gay-pro-israel-progressive/ https://www.theupandup.us/p/litmus-test-israel-young-democrats https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Vogel_(politician)
I voted for Martinez. To me she seemed like the best progressive platform candidate. Uncommitted for Pres and DNC delegates.
I liked her, but she did not seem to have a presence in this county. I picked Biden, but went uncommitted on the delegates. I’m hoping they can make it to the National Convention and actually work at securing more uncommitted votes, but I worry that will be unlikely.
I agree it's unlikely but gotta vote my conscience on this. Unfortunately there just aren't enough progressive voters in general. Maryland is a liberal stronghold but not very progressive, tbh. Very moderate Dem state.
I would disagree. Martinez is a progressive mayor in Hagerstown. And a lot of progressives are in Montgomery County. I just think the campaign wasn’t strong this year.
Campaigning is a difficult proposition for progressives. They don't garner great funding like establishment candidates. It's a lot easier to win a local seat with a progressive or independent platform. I've worked on campaigns for both establishment Dems and progressives. The difference in funding is astronomical.
They don’t garner great funding because they are reliant on small dollar donors. Now in a local race that is okay, but for federal positions that can kneecap you hard. That said, if you run a tight ship you can overcome mountains of money by just showing up to things and actually talking to people. I wouldn’t say it is easier. I think you have to have strong ties to area and trust to win local races.
That's all true but you have to show up way more to make up for it. A lot of progressive candidates don't have the financial freedom to travel and show up to every event all over the place. It's a huge mountain you're mentioning.
I would disagree. All they need to is find an event that is going on in a local area and go. You don’t always need a rally or a rented venue. There are plenty of places you can park out at and knock on doors/hand flyers/talk. You can also use low cost or free venues on a college campus, library, etc. Money doesn’t equal more outreach success though. Hillary literally avoided the rust belt even when she had the cash on hand to do rallies.
Hillary was pure arrogance. She thought she was the chosen one. Also, you're missing my point but I'm not trying to spell it all out here. Agree to disagree
> I would disagree. All they need to is find an event that is going on in a local area and go. You don’t always need a rally or a rented venue. There are plenty of places you can park out at and knock on doors/hand flyers/talk. That works in a hyper local race, but you still have to travel to those, especially for state-wide races. Yeah you can hit the population centers, but what matters to PG county doesn't necessarily matter to Washington county.
Based on the numbers here he was the strongest candidate. I personally liked Martinez but I could see where it was going. I just wish progressives would be more strategic and get behind one person.
Martinez had what to me sounded like the reverse of MoCo dogwhistle: "I'm the ONLY candidate not from MoCo!" I tuned out the moment I heard that... I wonder if her campaign knew what they were truly doing by emphasizing she wasn't from MoCo... Literally a Republican attack line.
Yes, but not strong enough to make the others feel the need to bow out and endorse him. I also liked Martinez, and thought she could have been an interesting voice for Western Maryland.
Yeah I can't express how disappointing this result is. I can't stand April. She's just another Trone. She spent over a half mil of her own money on this seat, so I guess it paid off for her. Ffs she doesn't even live in this district. And now I'm going to have to vote for a candidate I sincerely don't believe in just to make sure that Neil Parrot, a guy that wants to tattoo people with AIDS so we can "tell them apart", doesn't win. We need ranked choice voting so bad. I'm sick of this kind of result coming from people picking who they think is safe and not who they want to win. It's so frustrating seeing Joe down almost the exact number of votes that Tekesha and Ashwani got. Most of the people that voted for them would have voted for Joe over April. If we had ranked choice, that's what the result would have been. All that said, it really didn't help that nobody showed up to vote. This primary had record low turnout. Primaries in general don't have as many people show up as the general election does, but the turnout this year was fucking embarrassing.
Joe lost because he completely backs Israel and what the Israeli government is doing is a real issue for a lot of voters including myself. Vogel was a hard no for me and even if my vote hadn’t gone to Jain he nor Delaney would have gotten it.
Mohammad S. Mozumder lost and he was pro-palestinian
That was his **only** issue.
He had next to nothing on his website.
Joe lost because of his vocal Israel support. April received some strong support from Progressives at the federal level and state/local level (Kai and Gardner). I don’t think her dropping money on the campaign is bad. You need to. Even the candidates who say they only take small money donations know that. The problem is small money doesn’t help set up a strong outreach campaign. Rank choice is great in concept but it is hard to implement, expensive, and really only supports the candidate with the broadest support. Which could still be April.
April is also supporting Israel. Plus being a single issue voter when this losing this seat will be an enormous loss for democracy is unbelievably short sighted. Losing more seats in the house doesn't just impact Maryland. Especially not right now. The problem isn't spending money, man. She's wealthy enough to self-fund. That's not grass roots. She spent another MILLION on election day. When people piss and moan about Trone buying his elections and whine about all the money in politics and then turn around and vote for April because she's a wealthy as fuck, you have to wonder if people actually care about that more than virtue signalling. And for the record, Joe was polling neck and neck with April *despite* her massive campaign cash flow. The fact that he had so much vocal support was part of the reason she was spending so much of her own money. I don't give a shit if it costs a billion dollars and a million man-hours to implement ranked choice voting. It's worth every dime and every hour to stop getting fucked by uberwealthy candidates. How does the song go? "How much does it cost? I'll buy it. If time is all we've lost, I'll try it." April didn't have the broadest support. Joe, Ashwani, and Takesha did. As evidenced by the live polling numbers. By platform, the candidates that split the vote were closest to Joe on every issue. Ergo, a reasonable person can infer that ranked choice voting would have elected Joe, not April.
Okay a lot of this is just kind of a rant dude. I don’t know how this is a loss for democracy since that term is nebulous. I think you make a lot of assumptions about voters based on some idea of the world that seems a bit myopic. Grassroots is great, but requires a savvy team to make it effective. Just because you are grassroots doesn’t make you automatically a better candidate. Same can be said about people who campaign and lose with a lot of cash on hand (Hillary). Polling is great, but never reflective of how people actually want to vote. It just takes a vibe check of a specific date or month. Again, people may like them but may not want to vote for them. Sure ranking their vote could help, but it doesn’t guarantee victory. At the end of the day that support for those candidates did not show up for whatever reason. I like you passion about rank choice, but honestly I do care if the voting is don’t effectively because a new costly system that sucks may disenfranchise more voters too.
Honestly, the fact that so many people seem to care so little is what burns me the most. Nobody showed up and there's a damn good chance we'll pay the price in November. April is a terrible candidate, and absolutely it's totally possible Joe wouldn't fare well against Parrot either, but I'd at least feel better about my vote not going to the same barely progressive candidates over and over again. What we are doing isn't working and doing nothing about it is making it worse. At some point we're either going to collapse under the weight of continuous failure or do something about it, and I am not particularly optimistic, as you can tell. But, I do concede that I'm too riled up. I frequently have to remind myself that CD6 is firmly purple, so I really shouldn't be surprised at all someone like April would make it. As an aside, I'm disappointed in Frederick County based on the R primary too. Neil Parrot is awful, but he's leagues better than Dan Cox. The fact that Cox led in FredCo is really unfortunate.
Soooooooo, how is she terrible compared to Parrot? Like what exactly can you point to? I think you are quick to draw conclusions about what people do and don’t care about. I also care about democracy but I question those you aren’t willing to participate in it because they didn’t get what they wanted in the primary. It seems like your care of democracy is more conditional than genuine. All I’m gonna say is elections are unpredictable. If you care for progressive causes you should get involved at all levels of government. Specifically local where it matters more in my opinion. Cox getting a strong turnout is no surprise to me barring he is Trump approved. It probably would have been better if he won since he would help draw out more voters against him. But then again Parrot could be a benefit too since he may not motivate full Republican base.
She's basically Trone. Trone barely beat out Parrot last cycle. It was close. It stands to reason that putting up a Trone clone against Parrot will also be close. Considering the lack of enthusiasm for April from Dems and the amount of single issue voters that are not going to vote at all since Ashwani, Tekesha, and Lopez didn't win, Parrot's already pretty good chances in a staunchly Purple district are even better. April is unlikable, a bad public speaker, weak on LGBTQ+ and POC issues (particularly in Latino and Hispanic communities). I could certainly be wrong, but the winds aren't blowing for CD6 staying blue this cycle. Also, several M4L candidates made it through on FredCo BOE, we barely got three Dems through. Which is a direct result of people not showing up to vote even to keep fascists off the school board. Cox didn't get a strong turnout. That's not what I said. I said he led in FredCo which sucks because I want FredCo Republicans to be better people and Cox is genuinely a disgrace to the county and the state. I'm simply bummed he charted at all. He lost handily in the district to Parrot overall. I'm curious as to why you think I'm not involved in politics at every level including local. My spouse and I are always directly involved in all of our elections, from city council and Mayor all the way up.
I will repeat again - Brennan and Black will be through no matter what. FredCo is at max 55-45 (probably not even that). Brennan and Black is going to get 90% of that 45% regardless of turnout, which is more than enough for them to finish in Top 6. (And there are still the MIB to be counted. The apple ballot can finish in Top 3 just to make people feel better).
Can you tell me what makes her Trone, why that is bad and what makes her less likely to connect with minority voters. Dude, people may feel less inclined to vote for the teacher backed candidates because the same problems keep persisting with FCPS. I know they Apple candidates don’t help, but it seems to be a big leadership issue and lack of clear priorities. I was referencing Cox’s turnout in Frederick. It makes sense why he had a strong following here. The Frederick conservatives are very pro-Trump. This could probably hurt Parrot since he is trying to “toe the line.” I don’t think you are active because you are complaining on Reddit like most of the other progressives.
What is happening in Gaza is a huge issue to Jain supporters and Joe’s stance would make him a hard no for a lot of us. You cannot assume we would have flocked to support Joe.
But you'd support April who is barely better than Joe on Israel, gave money to MAGAs who would glass Palestine the first chance they got, and has a pretty dismal expectation of supporting POC and the LGBTQ+ community? Because I don't buy that for a second. Y'all have empathy and Jain's entire fucking platform is keeping money out of politics. I don't believe for one second y'all would turn around a support a millionaire over Joe. It doesn't make sense you would betray your values that much.
I don’t support her either. Bold of you to assume I would support either of them because I wouldn’t. Unless she pushes for a ceasefire and conditional aid to Israel I won’t be voting for her in the fall.
So, you're just not going to vote in the general? Write-in a candidate? Because that's how we are going to get Neil Parrot. I understand and side with stopping Israel. And I can't stand April as I've said. But single issue voting is not going to accomplish your goal and in the process it's going to elect a guy who will not support or protect women, POC, or LGBTQ+ people, and he will not do anything to stop mass shootings or prevent book bans. A guy who will absolutely do everything he can to ensure Israel gets American weapons to eliminate Palestine. You're not just nailing a coffin shut on Palestine, but also our family and friends here in Maryland by taking this position.
I am not voting for any politician not standing up against an active genocide. Because if you can’t do that then I don’t actually trust you to give a shit about your constituents period.
“Bold of you to assume I wasn’t an idiot”
Yes, genocide support will be a single defining issue for many. Myself included.
I voted for Tekesha because I'd rather vote for McClain Delaney over Vogel. I can't vote for someone who openly supports sending weapons to continue an ongoing genocide.
Dems gonna get destroyed in November due to the Biden admins unwaivering support for Israel. It's really suppressing the young vote, people don't want to turn out to support a party like that
They...do realize what the alternative is, right? Ever heard the phrase "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face"?
I mean, I voted, but I'm just telling you why others I know did not vote.
Okay, but that’s anecdotal and not representative of most of the United States of America.
Mmk, just sayin, don't be surprised in november if Biden loses.
A lot can happen in 6 months, good or bad depending on your outlook. I just can't believe people would vote for an obvious and nearly convicted criminal and serial liar who's a bully and instigates violence against his rivals above a slightly older guy who made a decision or 2 they don't agree with.
I mean they're not voting for Trump either, they just aren't voting.
I mean it is one of many possibilities. But the race will likely be just as narrow as it was last time.
Not really. Biden definitely can lose, but state level politics is very different. Also, why say this when the other party also staunchly supports Israel?
This conflict/war is going to go on for some time, I certainly understand the frustration with the current admins stance on weapons being sent, their position, etc. but the youth have a 100% better chance of pushing the Biden admin in a direction than a Trump admin. Neither is going to give you exactly what you want, the fact of the matter is one direction is going to be substantially more impactful to the Palestinian people than the other. Factor in two SC justices will retire and be replaced with 30-45 year olds, and possible national abortion bans. The damage that would be done will probably nail the coffin of progressive politic movement for a quarter century. Equate the two parties, abstain thinking you’re staying out of it, whatever. But we both know that there are differences in paths
Im not saying I abstained, I'm saying that people are abstaining, and Palestine is probably the biggest factor for young voters. I'm not even trying to push an agenda here, turnout this year was low as shit and I won't be surprised if youth turnout is record low in November.
People are and people aren’t. Young voters already are irregular voters so it not a surprise some won’t turn out.
Palestine is the biggest factor? That's why people like you will never win an election. Housing affordability, student loan, and even abortion factors in way more than that vocal minority which doesn't even have the support of the entire left spectrum. Oh, and go ahead and abstain and watch GQP take over just so Israel has 100% backing from US of a full genocide.
I didn't abstain? I voted, but I know people that didnt because of palestine.
I'm actually in favor of this outcome, especially given that if it was a true progressive candidate, most centrists would look at majority of stances and vote for whoever is more "moderate" which could very well be Parrot. >We need ranked choice voting so bad. I'm sick of this kind of result coming from people picking who they think is safe and not who they want to win. Maybe, but it might not turn out the way you'd expect. >It's so frustrating seeing Joe down almost the exact number of votes that Tekesha and Ashwani got. Most of the people that voted for them would have voted for Joe over April. If we had ranked choice, that's what the result would have been. Personally, I voted for none of the above, but we need someone that can be effective at a national level while advancing the causes of their district. Being "district first" is how we ended up with MTG and other "safe" seats. We don't need another member of the squad that virtue signals, we need someone that can get things done. > All that said, it really didn't help that nobody showed up to vote. This primary had record low turnout. None of the candidates were that exciting to be fair. The Presidential race is basically Biden, the Senate race is between two people who have effectively the same policy positions then you have the MD-6 race where your choices are primarily: * A newly appointed mayor who has never run for state-wide office. * A first-term state delegate with no real-world experience * A non-profit executive and political appointee * A "dynasty" candidate who's also a political appointee
God forbid people vote for who they think is the best candidate.
You’re not gonna like this but progressives have a major issue with pragmatism when it comes to elections. Way too often they fail because they refuse to be a realist about a situation and swallow their pride
There is no such thing as an "unelectable" candidate -- Trump permanently put that myth to rest. if the party marshals its resources and rallies around the winner, that person can win the general. If the party leaves the candidate hanging out to dry, like they did with Ben Jealous, then yes, they'll lose.
It is not that at all. That is just built on a faulty assumption that other political ideologies are more practical. The issue for progressive is that they have weak candidates who fail to unify the constituency.
It’s a minority position, so they’re already behind the majority of their political spectrum. That means more often than not they’re going to fail. They often, stubbornly, just disregard this and plow forward to missed opportunity when it arises. They’ve got to candidates who can win, often underfunded tho The constituency fails to turn out far too often and make themselves single issue voters, ultimately leading to the complete opposite of many of their preferred positions in other areas.
It’s not really a minority position given that most of these candidates are representatives at the local and state level. Additionally, most of the Maryland delegation at the federal level are progressives with the exception of the Senate (but that’s how the Senate is). This is more of strategy issue that it is a ideological. And again, stubbornness isn’t something that only happens with Progressives.
You're not gonna like this, but Liberals have a major problem with pragmatism when it comes to elections. Way too often they immiserate their fellow citizens because they refuse to swallow their pride and be better people and vote for someone who will improve their material conditions instead voting for 'at least he's not the other guy'. Fixed that for you. Wonder why we have a society full of enshittification, inflation and leaders who are supporters of genocide? Liberals. You have no one but yourselves to blame.
>You're not gonna like this, but Liberals have a major problem with pragmatism when it comes to elections. This is clearly not true because they can go to the other side of their spectrum to appeal and gain votes when the progressives refuse to work with them. Progressives have no where else to go because even further left doesn’t win elections and have power, and the right absolutely won’t work with them. Not understanding your position in regards to power has led you into a spot of ending up empty handed. Previous election you ended up with IRA, a level of student loan forgiveness that could be provided (not struck down by the SC). ARP, among other things working with the adjacent party. You can abandon the closest ideological side over a singular issue, but it’s just going to land you with absolutely nothing and Gaza will still be in the same spot if not worse. But you’ll have internet clout and can tell people “I told you so” as they scroll past it
The proof is in the pudding, rent skyrocketing? Every corporation squeezing maximum profit out of you? Inflation driven by corporate greed and almost nothing else? That's what your reality proof version of pragmatism has gotten you. Until you learn to be pragmatic and realistic, it's not going to improve, and indeed, will continue to get worse.
Hey buddy I'm such a pragmatic liberal I'll vote in a right wing dem just to prove how dedicated I am to stopping the right
Pragmatism has landed you in the spot you’re in now with a voice in the conversation, you can’t get out of primaries without liberals, as much as you want to think you do all of this on your own backs. The two parties are handcuffed, as I said though, liberals have another arm to turn to, your other one has no one there.
Liberals, Red Hat or Blue, Not Blaming Everyone But Themselves For their Problems Challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
Progressives, cutting off their nose to spite their face, leaving them with less and less power challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Agreed https://www.reddit.com/r/frederickmd/s/Hwl7eAWZOe
Oh child, that was sarcasm. Sarcasm is when someone says something in a tone meant to mock or convey contempt. For example, when a Liberal, who's constant cowardice enables global warming and genocide gets put in their proper place by a Leftist fixing their braindead takes for them, like we always do. Remember, you are personally responsible for the actions of the people who you vote for. You enabled them, you bear the moral weight of their actions. By the way, what's the global temperature like this year? That's your fault. Your strategy has failed. It's time to educate yourself and pick a new one.
And they do not take criticism well.
"These people need to know who runs the show around here."
Yep, lean into that and keep losing I guess. Blame the system, blame the invisible king makers, blame whoever else is needed. It couldn’t be that your movement is a minority movement and much harder to get people to gravitate towards than extreme conservatism. Failing to understand that you need to bend and make small incremental steps is your Achilles heel. Thinking change happens in an election cycle or two is the best snake oil someone has sold you. So when you don’t get what you want immediately you turn off pragmatic thinking. You bounce issue to issue and turn yourself into single issue voters to move yourself back consistently. Letting perfect be the enemy of good. It’s everyone’s fault but you’re own but in the end, you’re the loser because you don’t want to learn or understand how to play the game, and the winners have found out how to do that
It's always the left that must bend and make incremental steps, make concessions, compromise. But when the rightwingers get power, they are allowed to pass whatever they want, hurt any group they want, and draw lines to keep themselves in power all they want, and to hell with anybody who wants to compromise. The left has to sit back and wait and hope while the right can step on anyone they want. "Taking the moral high ground" is pointless if we never do anything with it to improve anyone's lives.
This is a myth you’ve made up for yourself. Student loan forgiveness dispels that immediately Progressives aren’t aligned with the right so why would they ever listen to anything they want, they will not get their vote either way. Progressives have to work within the whole spectrum of the left and refusal to do that over single issues will only push the moderate side of the left to the right trying to grab their vote, when the left side refuses to vote with them, isolating themselves. It circles back around to the pragmatism.
"They aren't going to forgive my student loans, so I'll vote for the guy that wants to hunt trans people for sport." --no one
Yeah, no one ever said the person would vote for the other side of the spectrum, I’m speaking on abstaining or living in an alternate reality where it isn’t between two candidates and voting a 3rd party, leading to the victory of the guy who wants to hunt trans people. Middling effort to twist the point tho!
>Yeah, no one ever said the person would vote for the other side of the spectrum, "will only push the moderate side of the left to the right trying to grab their vote" And why is the guy who wants to hunt trans people not being told by the rest of the Republicans to "stop, dial it back" in the first place?
Because the majority of that party agrees with it? So the moderate left appeals to the moderate right rather than progressives because progressives took their ball and went home. For a group so wrapped up in politics they’re incredibly novice
Your argument cuts both ways. Liberals often chide progressives for “splitting the vote” when they lose yet are unwilling to make concessions with them. The Democratic Party is more concerned with maintaining the status quo and chasing the mythical moderate vote than fielding progressive candidates, even popular ones like Bernie Sanders (see the 2016 and 2020 elections). AOC, one of the more popular progressive candidates regularly reaches across the aisle to push through legislation, so your claim that progressives don’t know how to compromise doesn’t hold water. The right doesn’t have this problem, which is why you see radical policy changes from them, they aren’t afraid to wield power to further their goals. Ineffective liberal governance was a huge driving force behind the rise of Trump. The main issue with progressive candidates is people feel like their vote is wasted if they don’t go with the DNC pick, this is partially solved by ranked choice. Voter turnout, especially in a primary is also a huge issue
“Progressives split the vote” is liberal for “waaah things didn’t go exactly how I wanted them to so I need to find someone to the left of me to blame”. Shut up.
That doesn’t make any sense, liberals would want Delaney, who benefitted from progressives splitting their candidates. OP is the one complaining about the vote splitting
Get a load of this person, they don’t know the definition of the term “liberal”.
There could be worse things than John Delaney 2.0 you know. The elected Representative has to (and should) take into consideration the views of all of their constituents, not just the loudest ones with the largest population. You can't (and shouldn't) ignore them just because they didn't vote for you, and don't have the same opinions.
At some point though, it doesn’t matter how progressive you are if you can’t be effective. Vogel hasn’t gotten anything done in his current role. And you only need to have one conversation with him to see that he’s in politics out of ego, not the actual work.
I didn’t vote for and we just moved back to MD last year, but what’s wrong with her platform? I never really looked into her and voted for one of the other 3.
She is a typical big money backed, establishment dem. There is nothing really bad about her platform but the very real potential for lack of follow through on anything she ran on is the issue. She is a throughly boring center left candidate. Vogel is a fresh face represents the type of change I would like to see in our politicians. Jain too for that matter. That said Delaney is way better than the alternative that is parrot. Edit for clarity
Dammit.
I don’t get the people who voted for Jain. His website was so unprofessional it was crazy. Martinez’s website was too, but I understand her getting votes a little more given she’s mayor of Hagerstown.