you?

Zip Zilch Nada

... and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

It makes sense that she would not want a Dem on the ballot with her who may take votes that would likely have gone to her. I think Cuomo's situation is different.

....recently?

I made my point then.

Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2018, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

I see you're sticking with the violence against women / little girls gifs in your signature?

The fact that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez might be a little hypocritical?

But by all means, snark on.

"No, you're hurting me, NO!", he throws here in the pond, she sinks and drowns.

That scene was originally cut from the movie because it was too violent.

It takes on an much clearer meaning. And in the context of all that we know, and all that we've seen, and when considering history and current events... it's disgusting.

All I'm saying is that people's choices reveal much about their character and intent, but in order to see such things, one must do so with their eyes wide open and in full possession and understanding of the facts. I think we can all agree with that, can't we?

Got it, I know what I know.

I just cant believe I have to deal with it here.

And illuminating.

Any person who runs in a Democratic Primary, then runs for any 3rd party in the General should forever be banned from running on any Democratic Party ticket again. I'm hoping Nixon removes herself from the 3rd party ballot. I'm sick of 3rd party and independent spoilers. I love that ours is the party that champions diversity, doesn't give free passes, and does chose humanity over country over party.. but damn it would be nice if we could get our collective heads out of our asses and come together when it means a Democrat winning over a Republican like the other side does. They put party over everything, and it is a big part of why they make all the decisions.

I congratulate candidate Ocasio-Cortez on her own win though. Personally, I'm totally fine with getting the more progressive/liberal candidates in.. IF they can win in the general in the races they are running in.

... and I've seen that often. The tactic of "sending a message" and "destroy-to-rebuild" and "I'm-purer-than-you" is a myopic and losing strategy that ONLY benefits the GOP. All I'm trying to say is that WINNING and DEFEATING the GOP is the only priority. It serves no good purpose to smear the Democratic party, or to denigrate Democratic candidates and politicians, and divide Democrats.

....leave the posturing to rallies, podcasts, etc. but OFF THE BALLOT!

many here on DU dismiss it as a "strongly worded letter."

I wish I hadnt predicted it, but I did.

... and more important than having an accomplished, effective and experienced leader, eh?

Good lord! Enough tantrums, please! We need to get to work DESTROYING the GOP, not "destroying our own" for vanity's sake.

we think it is.

I am right, too. By the time we find it out though, too late.

Once the damage is done, it is too late. Not completely irreversible, but too late for our contemporaries to be able to change it and to be as effective in their jobs, roles, positions. The "destroy to rebuild" attitude promoted by Sarandon, Nader, Stein (and one or more "other" well-known politicians) is a dangerous and foolish one that ONLY benefits the GOP (and as a result it benefits Russia, too.)

I had no idea that the national party has no say on who is or isn’t allowed to run as a member of their party on ballots...

I knew states control the elections, and if they run a caucus or primary and such, but I sure thought the Democratic Party could determine who does or doesn’t run on ballots for elected positions under the Democratic Party banner.

Seems fundamentally wrong to me.

and then as an independent in the general?

I was thinking more in line with the OP topic regarding Nixon running against a Democrat.

Senator Sanders does also fit that criteria, but I wouldn't say it's exactly an apples to apples comparison. Personally, my whole focus is the reduction of Republicans in our government.

I don't follow Senator Sanders that closely, but I believe the times he did that was during a primary, and I don't think he's run as an independent against a Democrat, and certainly hasn't done it resulting in handing a Republican a victory (well, unless you count Trump, but again that's a slightly difference scenario as well).

Even if it does affect his approach, I still think that should be a basic rule. If you run as a Democrat in a Democratic Primary, and you then run as either a 3rd party or independent in the General, you shouldn't be allowed back on any ballot identifying as Democratic Party.

to get his name off the ballot, that he has no say....same as Collins in upstate NY.

Joe Crowley certainly made such a pledge. Then on primary night he did indeed endorse Ocasio-Cortez. The issue arises in NY-14 because he nevertheless remains on the general-election ballot as an opponent of the Democratic nominee whom he had pledged to support.

If Cynthia Nixon made no such pledge, then the two situations aren't comparable, because she's not acting in a way that undermines a pledge.

Anyone who puts great store on party identification is free to vote, in a primary, against a candidate who might stay on the ballot against the primary winner. More precisely, such voters can vote that way if they know what the candidate will do. I don't know if anyone in NY-14 knew that Crowley, who had pledged to support the Democratic nominee, would nevertheless stay on the ballot as an opposing party's nominee. My guess is that, by contrast, every Democrat voting in the gubernatorial primary knew there was a chance that Nixon would be on the general-election ballot on the WFP line, so such voters could take that into account into assessing her candidacy.

...is an opponent of the Democratic nominee.

Cynthia Nixon is also now an opponent of the Democratic nominee. The New York State Board of Elections doesn't care about any "pledge".

Like it or not, they're both "opponents of the Democratic nominee". But if you recall back to late June and well into July there was quite a bit of gnashing of teeth and umbrage taken about Crowley's WFP "candidacy", even the accusation that he was "mounting a 3rd party challenge"!

Link to tweet

But I cant talk about it either so we will just let it happen before our very eyes.

a high raking Democratic Party official who still has a lot of power.

...long before the Democratic primary.

and he refused to do so.

The ONLY way he could be removed from the ballot is if any one of these four conditions were met:

1. He was put on the ballot for another office.
2. He moved out of the District
3. He is convicted of a crime
4. He died

Yes, to put it in your terms, he "refused", he refused to commit election fraud by running for an office he wasn't planning on accepting, he refused to move out of the District in which he was born and lived his entire life, he refused to commit a crime, and he refused to die.

What a cantankerous man, eh?

Now, to get back to the subject of the OP, I wonder if Cynthia Nixon plans to try to meet any of those four conditions?

Not interested in Crowley’s lame excuses. And as has been pointed out already, the Nixon situation is completely different.

I know it was pointed out already, but that doesn't make it correct - the Nixon situation isn't completely different whatsoever.

In both cases you have two Democratic candidates facing off in a primary, one in each was already the Working Families Party candidate. In both cases the Working Families Party candidate lost the Democratic primary.

Crowley was castigated and berated for not moving, running for another office, committing a crime or dying.

Nixon is not an incumbent or Democratic Party official. She has no power. Nor did she make pledge that Crowley and then reneged on.

And Crowley was castigated for not living up to his pledge.

He doesn't have to "move out of the District in which he was born and lived his entire life...." Spare me the bathos.

Crowley actually has a residence in Virginia. His wife lives there. His children live there and go to school in Virginia.

All he has to do is register to vote at his Virginia residence. Then the WFP can take him off the ballot. After the deadline for ballot composition, he can change back. (The deadline may have passed already, in which case this whole thread is moot.)

Now, let me address some responses -- not specifically you, George II, but just on the wild off-chance that there are some people reading this thread who are still consumed by hatred for Bernie Sanders and who haven't gotten over their butthurt that a Sanders organizer beat a more conservative incumbent who had endorsed Hillary Clinton:

I'm not criticizing Crowley for maintaining two residences. Most members of Congress do. I'm saying only that someone in that situation has some legitimate scope for choice in designating a legal residence. There's an element of subjectivity. Registering to vote where he spends most of his time wouldn't be fraudulent.

This solution would not require him to give up his living quarters, whatever they are, in New York.

Yes, I know he's the Chair of the Queens Democratic Party. Would reregistering require him to step down from that post? I don't know. What I do know, based on my knowledge of the Queens Democratic organization, is that it wouldn't be a problem. Everyone might just look the other way. Alternatively, I'm confident that some apparatchik could be found who would be installed as the new Chair and who would resign as soon as Crowley was eligible again.


As to the subject of this thread, namely the covert or overt bashing of the Democratic nominee on grounds of alleged hypocrisy, it's evident that Ocasio-Cortez doesn't dismiss a pre-primary pledge as casually as you do (in #39). I suppose that's an example of how these Our Revolution/Justice Democrat types just don't understand practical politics, which evidently includes lying to the voters when it's expedient.

And, as to the point I made in this post, I don't happen to know whether Cynthia Nixon has a residence outside New York to which she could easily switch her legal residence without having to pack up a single dish, the way Crowley could. But the real point is that Ocasio-Cortez treats the two situations as different because she still clings to the idea that a politician's promises might matter. Unicorns and rainbows, indeed!

It's nice that you've mapped out how he should upend his life to accommodate the wishes of others.

And I don't think you even want to get into the issue of "lying to the voters when it's expedient", do you?

You're still on this "upend his life" falsehood.

He makes two quick trips to the Board of Elections. That's it. No packing all his belongings, no paying thousands of dollars to movers, no being hundreds of miles away from everyone he knows, no kids changing schools, nothing. I've moved several times with those things happening. It does involve upending one's life. But anyone who read my post without preconceptions would see that what I described for Crowley would be absolutely nothing of the sort.

And it's not "to accommodate the wishes of others" but to fulfill a campaign pledge. I regard such pledges as meaningful, you dismiss them as pure political maneuvering, and that's a gap too fundamental for us to try to bridge.

You're right about one thing -- that I don't want to get into the issue of lying to the voters, at least not in a thread on DU. You could probably fire away at will, while many of the things I would want to say would get the post removed. This isn't a good forum for a free and open discussion of that subject.

Neither is JPR when it comes to rationally debunking Clinton/Obama/DNC conspiracy nonsense.

On this particular score (criticizing politicians), however, JPR is somewhat more open. JPR sometimes has posts criticizing Bernie Sanders, posts that draw ripostes but are allowed to stand. Comparable posts on DU criticizing Hillary Clinton would be removed.

The DU admins have a complete right to set the rules for their forum. I have to take those rules into account in deciding what to post here, and therefore what disputes to get involved with in the first place.

....has Seth Rich killed wouldn't last long here, most definitely.

Elsewhere....

Obviously, no one could possibly advance any criticism whatsoever of Hillary Clinton except for nutjobs of the Seth Rich/Vince Foster/Pizzagate type. So, if I had in mind a post that would be removed here, that must definitely be what I had in mind. Absolutely.

SMH.

And I'd like to see someone challenge it there. I bet that goes well.

Much like righteously yelling at the rain.

Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2018, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

The are several posts claiming that the Crowley and Nixon situation are exactly the same.

ballot unless he moves out of the district.

It isn't reasonable to ask him to do so IMO.

Please explain what specifically you would have liked him to do that he has failed to do. What action would you have him take?

And no one else made these excuses

Please explain what specifically you would have liked him to do that he has failed to do. What action would you have him take?

And since I support the official nominee of the Democratic Party and not a third party spoiler, I’m not making excuses for Crowley’s lame excuses.

against the Democratic nominee who's actions have the potential to split the vote and elect a republican to what should be a safe Democratic seat.

Now, since you earlier said it's happened in the past and the candidates have handled it - who, when, and how?

Otherwise, well........

I answered your first question, now you answer mine.

Why are you supporting the actions of a third party spoiler candidate versus the democratic party nominee?

....responded with your post #67 which didn't answer the question, and then your post #70 and now this.

As you say, "you don't make the rules here", you were asked a simple question which essentially asked for clarification of a claim you made in post #59, you ducked it and then you went down this new road.

I can understand if you don't want to answer, probably because there isn't an answer.

So, please answer the FIRST question posed to you way back in #61, and then we can proceed with the discussion. This is a two-way street, again, "you don't make the rules here", and you shouldn't expect more from others than you're willing to provide yourself.

Next?

You asked which option would I take. I answered either 1 or 2.

Now answer my question. Why defend a third party spoiler against the official nominee of the Democratic Party?

The inability or unwillingness to answer it really says a lot.

That would really cross the line.

Why would someone come to a site devoted to supporting Democratic candidates to attack a Democratic Party nominee in support the actions of a third party spoiler candidate.

.....please give us an example of this happening in the past and how that candidate addressed it. Remember, you authoritatively stated that it's happened in the past.

Why on a site dedicated to supporting the Democratic Party are you defending the actions of a third party spoiler candidate which has the potential to split the vote and hand a safe Democratic seat to the GOP?

....how do you feel about Cynthia Nixon running as "a third party spoiler candidate which has the potential to split the vote and hand a safe Democratic seat to the GOP"?

But it is not the same situation. And don’t pretend it is just my interpretation. You’re OP was an attack on Ocasio-Cortez.

Now stop ducking my question.

By saying that the gubernatorial "situation is almost exactly the same," you imply that the existence of a pre-primary pledge is almost completely irrelevant.

That's where we differ.

it was offered as a mutual pact, but it was rejected.

I would be affronted by any lesser classification.

The closest I found was Ocasio-Cortez who supported Nixon took some heat for saying she'd back Cuomo. Then someone in her campaign walked back her comments on Tapper's show.

fickle supporters, smdh.

after the primary.

In Dore's world, if your candidate doesn't win the primary, you're supposed to do as he did and throw a "Bust" tantrum and actively root for Trump to win.

If she is asked a direct question about the aftermath of the Cuomo/Nixon primary she can answer but there is no reason for her to bring it up on her own - it doesn't involve her.

What both Crowley and Nixon should do is tape new campaign ads supporting the winners of their primaries, and asking voters to vote for the winners. Probably that would get the folks at the Working Families Party pissed, especially regarding Cuomo/Nixon. They need sufficient votes on their party line in the Governor's race in order to stay listed on ballots

You're right that Nixon, running against Cuomo in the general, might not get 50,000 votes, which would cost the WFP its automatic ballot line.

On the other hand, when they nominated her, they knew that she would almost certainly lose the Democratic primary, and that they would therefore be in this situation. They went ahead anyway. Presumably they remembered 2014. That year, there was strong sentiment within the party to support Zephyr Teachout, which would have raised the same difficulty. The party decided to stay with Cuomo, despite his conservatism, based partly on his promise to take on the IDC, a promise he then broke. As George W. Bush would say, fool me once, won't get fooled again. They may well have decided that they can't keep letting Cuomo bully them. Their alternative is to stand up to him and figure they can probably get 50,000 votes, just as the Green Party has been doing lately.

It seems likely that Cuomo will have a big lead in the general election. That means that some progressives who dislike him may decide that they can afford to vote Green or WFP without risking a Republican victory. If the race seems tight, some of those people will hold their noses and vote for Cuomo. And, of course, the Greens and the WFP will be competing against each other for some of the same voters.