That said, why did Capuano need a primary fight in 2018? I get that it's a safe seat, but this is not some conservative dem like in many other districts.

Find it interesting that there was any feeling that a primary challenge was in order.

People see an opening and, boom. God bless it and all that.

Pelts are going to be taken in bad political times. If Democrats as a party had been more successful people like Capuano and Crowley would be safer.

What do you mean, "if Democrats as a party had been more successful people like Capuano and Crowley would be safer."

She's a political insider, endorsed by her establishment peers, and said herself that there wasn't much difference between her and Capuano.

Everything is peaches but the cream I guess. Nothing wrong with this show. Uh-uh.

That is your explanation for why Democrat candidate Pressley's win is an indication that the Democratic party is doing poorly?

She didn't run as an independent or on the Social Democrats of America candidate, did she? Perhaps you have some inside knowledge that she did? Are you predicting that she will refuse the nomination and run as an independent or SDA candidate in the general? Because I don't see any other way her election is any sort of indictment of the Democratic party, as you claim.

Someone who said herself that she wasn't that different than her opponent, and has the endorsement of her establishement peers, and has slammed reduction of social justice issues to "identity politics" on the left....

Link to tweet

Because then the establishment has been validated, we’re fighting for dear life (and HRC) in the midterms and primarying safe seats would be seen as wasteful if not mindless.

Everything would be different now had we been more successful in 2016. Our party failed miserably so people (ie Democrats) get the idea that maybe we could use some change. Opportunity knocks for the change agents in a way that it wouldn’t have otherwise. This is not complicated.

Why do you say that she wouldn't even run if HRC was president?

She, Gillum, Abrams, and Woodfin were all Clinton surrogates and campaigners.

Looks like Hillary was the change agent. She did it behind the scenes where they could shine, instead of rushing in to take credit afterward. This is not complicated.

This needs to be spelled out?

And desperately trying to change the topic.

I completely understand why you would. That doesn't need to be spelled out.

But since you went there - are you also saying that Clinton protogees Woodfin, Abrams and Gillum would also not have run if HRC won?

Are you saying that Democrats wouldn't have voted them if HRC was president? Because she wouldn't have been a change agent if she had won?



What doesn't need to be spelled out is that POC, especially WOC tend show up on the Far Left radar only after they have been supported and nurtured by the Democratic party leaders, either at the local or national level, for awhile.

Democratic leaders (HRC in particular) are the ones building the bench with winning candidates, despite your claims that they have "failed miserably."

leaders like Andrew Gillum, Stacy Abrams, Ayanna Pressley, and so many others.

That poster has no idea what the future would be like if Hillary were in her rightful place as Madame POTUS. Just attempting to paint a negative picture.. Now who does that remind you of?

This is reality.. We wouldn't have Russian agents running our government/country into the ground. Fucking putin wouldn't be calling the shots. Those Kids and Babies wouldn't have been Kidnapped out of their parents arms. We wouldn't have all these shite for life ASSHOLES on SCOTUS.

The planet wouldn't be in such jeopardy.. We'd have our Allies, Canada, England, France.

The country wouldn't be going bankrupt from trump and his psychopaths stealing it blind. Taking away healthcare from people who need it.. it goes on and on.

But, oh some poster says Ayanna wouldn't run if Hillary were in the White House, where she would be if the Russians and their gd stupid enablers didn't steal the election.

challenging a secure democratic seat in the primary. Had HRC been elected, the party's approach to the fall elections would be very different. We wouldn't be expecting the energy that we expect now, because victory brings a higher tendency towards complacency, whereas dealing with the disaster-in-chief provides a powerful motivation and incentive to demonstrate some electoral might in the midterms. If HRC had won we wouldn't see as many primary candidates opposing established party members. The reasons Pressley challenged Capuano wouldn't likely be as compelling in a world where HRC was president as they are in trumpland. I think that's the point the poster is trying to make.

It's not to say that she wouldn't still have been a great candidate or wouldn't have found another opportunity to move forward in her career, but this particular opportunity at this particular moment is a function of the disaster of the trump election.

HRC losing "woke up" practically an entire generation that they were going to have to get more directly engaged and involved. SOME of these candidates don't run (not Gillum) if HRC is president. Heck, some of them probably would be in the executive branch instead. But the number of women running, and the people of color running, is heavily associated with the Trump win in 2016.

if HRC was in the White House? They were already involved in politics at the national level because of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. She inspired them - before DT was even in the White House.

You think that they would have just gone back home and not stayed involved if she had won?

Really?

It sounds like you are giving all credit to Trump for the success and ambition of these young black leaders.

You think that they would not or could not have done it but for a white man?

For one thing, there may have been extensive executive branch opportunities that they may have chosen instead.
It's not about "giving credit" to Trump. It is about acknowledging that with HRC as president, there would have been a significantly different political landscape in which these people would have been making choices.

Good one.

have continued a path to higher office once HRC was POTUS.

Heck, did people of color stop running for office when Obama got elected?

One of the many ways ambitious people move into the federal government is by getting into the executive branch when their party is in control and building their resumes that way. When HRC didn't get elected, it didn't mean people weren't still ambitious. So they are naturally going to look at the landscape and see what opportunities exist.

She wouldn't have gotten the support and endorsement from her peers, nor have earned this on her own, nor Democrats in her district have seen her as qualified. She would have just stopped being in politics after Hillary's campaign if HRC made it to the White House?

You say she owes her victory, even her candidacy, to a white man, and not the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, who were supporting her way before she was even on the far lefts' radar.

Got it.

creates urgencies and opportunities that are quite different from the urgencies and opportunities one would find in the context of an HRC presidency.

It's pretty absurd to equate what I'm saying with saying she owes her victory and her candidacy to a white man. Rather, her victory and her candidacy took place in the historical context in which we're all actually living. With Clinton in office, there would almost certainly be fewer such opportunities*, and running against a candidate like Capuano (who also supported HRC and whose policies, by Pressley's admission, aren't all that different from her own) wouldn't likely be a good opportunity in that world. I don't know what she would have done in that world, but in all likelihood it would have involved pursuing opportunities that, in that context would have been more promising and productive opportunities than challenging someone like Capuano. (Maybe she has a key position in the administration, for instance?)

I mean, do you honestly think that all the primary races we've seen this season would have featured the exact same candidates and with the exact same results if Clinton were in the oval office? Elections have consequences. One of those consequences is that, when a party establishment faces a setback as significant as 2016 there are more opportunities to challenge/rearrange/replace elements of the party establishment then when the party establishment is rolling up victories.

*on edit: fewer such electoral opportunities, I mean. In a Clinton administration, many rising stars would find that the best way to advance their career would be to find work in the administration, bolstering their credentials for higher offices down the road.

Do you know Capuano's record?

It's not about their record or their policies. Democrats, a lot of them, want something new. And the hunger for new is lot more profound than it would be if HRC was occupying the White House. That's not fair to people like Capuano, but it's the reality.

Any stats? Studies?

Your personal irritation with Democratic leadership?

The problem was never really "ideas" or "messaging" or " policies" in these blue districts.

Did the effect of Trump raise an awareness that was not there before? Yes. But there are a whole bunch of factors responsible for that.

What I do know is that HRC's loss has been a motivating factor for many and her candidacy inspired women to run.

The idea that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would have deflated support for Democrats is trying to use a narrative to prove a hypothetical. We really don't know what a Clinton presidency would have looked like except it wouldn't be the current shit show and that she'd still be attacked by allies in her first term, just as Obama was in his first term. Maybe the constant attacks by Republicans would have inspired the same turn out by women? We just don't know.

There is also no silver lining here with this Trump administration. Even if Dems take back the house and win the Presidency in 2020, undoing Trump's damage will take a while and will require voters give Democrats a consistent sustained majority in Congress for at least a decade. We've already seen the effects of a conservative court even when Obama was in office. For SCOTUS alone, there is no silver lining. Just 10 steps backward and us having to retrace those steps to get us back to a place we were..

Women are dominating primaries, and alongside with this is a very unified party. A divisive war is being waged on social media but this is not reflective of what's happening on the ground from my observations. What we're seeing in primaries are shared perspectives on policies with only slight differences. Do people want some "new faces"? Sure. But Ayanna was nurtured by the Democratic party proving there isn't some grand resistance to younger candidates. Sometimes a person is just a product of their time. There's nothing unique about that.

it's supposed to be. Don't you understand that you cannot castigate Capuano as a Democrat without castigating Pressley as a Democrat? And why would you want to anyway, for goodness' sakes?

It really seems to me, Beyond, that you are floundering in beyond-facts-land. Councilor Pressley is a good Democrat of the general Capuano type. Deny the darkness of self deception by at least accepting the truth even if you can't be glad.

And even then, your post is absurd. The conversation, such as it is, is about the dynamic that produced this primary race in the first place. Nobody is being cast as the bad guy or the hero, just politicians negotiating a changed landscape. Some people get it, if you look downthread, others don’t.

want to claim her win as a victory for dissident factions, or who want to imagine Capuano is not one of the most liberal members of congress. They really shouldn't be insulting him like that.

So it was a knee-jerk reaction from where I came in at your acceptance of blame for Democrats allowing ourselves to be overrun by evil forces in 2016. You're quite right that I should have read the entire thread, and you're also right for stating the simple truth that some people are going to lash out at the Democrats they can hurt instead of the Republicans and Russia who seem out of reach.

However, I see this change as far more a sign of a healthy election process, rather than the rejection of people like Capuano that the media and OR types want to cast it as. How could it be? Pressley is a person like Capuano.

I am a little surprised at the idea that a primary challenge to a congressman is seen as strange. Pressley advanced in her career, and the demographics of this district developed, to the point that her candidacy for national office in her own district seems very normal to me. And challengers ALWAYS promise change, it's required. In any case, this kind of thing happens when democracy is working as it should.

There will be a significant reshuffle of the people in charge in Congress (especially if we win the Senate and House back). Two big committee vacancies from two of the most progressive members is enough to shift the whole thing. Yes just two.

Still not sure how this works big picture. We replace a liberal dem with a liberal dem. Just younger. Not seeing the gain.

There are often massive changes that occur at the dividing line between generations. When Bill Clinton was elected is was as part of a generational change where it was no long WWII vets running and winning. It was now Vietnam era candidates. The "boomer" generation is coming to an end politically and you're seeing a new generation taking up the torch. I'll be interested to see if any of these explode into the 2020 elections much as Obama did.

Which is it?

I think what I said is that we wouldn't have seen all of these same candidates running if HRC were president. It would be a different landscape and they may have made different choices.

A straight white Christian male. As a guy who fits 3 of those I can see that. Not only because different backgrounds lead to different approaches, but it benefits members of those groups to see representation that looks like them.

That does not mean, however, that there is an automatic gain. You suggest "more" representation, but i'm not sure what "more" really means if the person already in office has the best interest of the populace in mind.

Went and read another article. Did not realize the rather dramatic shift in that district's demographics over the last 20 years or so.

I guess having a younger person with similar heritage does make for an awfully attractive candidate.

Trying to put myself in the position of my relatives in the 20's who would have voted for the italian guy, just to have a rep that had a similar background.

I really, really don't get it. Why not target close seats and try to change the actual dynamic? And, more to the point, why punish good, liberal lawmakers? WHY?

Then again, those acting shocked just figured out who the two people running in the primary were this morning. One take even foolishly claims it was a challenge from the left.

Here were my thoughts before the votes were counted.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211091518

and I think it showcases that we should take media reports with a grain of salt. The M$M keeps trying to stoke the "civil war" among Democrats, which far overstates the case. What we're seeing is probably not much more than the usual turnover in any party at any time.

Perhaps Capuano had kind of a built in disadvantage. He had been 10 terms in Washington, while Pressly had been working locally. Perhaps that gave her a better "recognition" factor among the people of the district.

IAE, it sounds to me that the district picked a pretty good candidate to send to Washington and fight for progressive ideals.

Democratic Socialists of America is trying to claim this win as their doing in "upsetting the status quo," despite her insider status, her self described similiarity to the incumbent, and endorsement by her establishment peers.

It isn't held up as how awful they are as a group.

fill in the blank with whatever you want, doesn't matter if it's relevant or accurate.

It is simply a situation where a 10 term congressman was replaced by a younger candidate who is NOT an outsider to the democratic party agenda.

Pressley will get elected in November, and this news will fade quickly.

Likely will still attach the "socialist" label anyway to anyone defeating a Democratic incumbent...gotta play along with the guys who pay the bills...the RW dark money and the mountains of laundered money pouring in every 2 year cycle., even from far off lands.

what all candidates should aspire to and work for if they want their name on the ballot. imo

Democratic candidates. A loss was not possible for that fortunate constituency.

Thanks for posting, ehrnst.