2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAguilar-Reyes Primary Battle in California Is Test for Democrats
(OK, this is the heading from the WSJ, still an interesting story..)
(snip)
At issue is an open California seat that was the scene of the Democrats' most bitter loss in 2012: A liberal-leaning district (that delivered 57% of its presidential vote to President Barack Obama) was won by a Republican after Democratic candidates split their party's vote, sending no Democrat to the general election. Under state rules, the top two vote-getters in a nonpartisan primary move to the general election, even if they are in the same party.
Determined to avoid repeating that scenario, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee moved quickly last year to endorse Pete Aguilar, the 34-year-old mayor of the Southern California city of Redlands. But another candidate, lawyer Eloise Gomez Reyes, jumped into the race with the support of Emily's List, an influential group that promotes female candidates who support abortion rights. That set up an intraparty battle for California's June 3 primary. While it is considered a long shot for Democrats to pick up the 17 House seats they need for a majority, the California district is one of the party's most promising pickup chances.
For the most part, Democrats in the past few election cycles have faced relatively few high-profile congressional primaries, compared with the numerous GOP primary fights that pit the tea-party wing against more centrist, pro-business Republicans. But in a few districts, Democrats are running as self-described outsiders against party favorites. In Pennsylvania, another woman backed by Emily's List, Shaughnessy Naughton, is running against DCCC-backed Kevin Strouse in a district near Philadelphia.
Ms. Reyes, a 58-year-old labor lawyer and first-time candidate who says she grew up picking onions in local farm fields, is trying to make a political virtue out of the fact that she isn't a career politician... Boris Medzhibovsky, a spokesman for Mr. Aguilar, who also supports abortion rights, said his candidate's campaign isn't just powered by political insiders. "Pete is building a people-powered, grass-roots campaign," Mr. Medzhibovsky said. The primary underscores how hard it can be for party leaders to clear the field for their anointed candidatesespecially in today's anti-Washington climate.
More..
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303834304579524050107116372
(If you cannot open by clicking, try to copy and paste the title onto google)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)we didn't waste money on two reasonable candidates fighting it out to see who would lose to the Rs.
The R's weren't all that big on running assholes, either, so often as not we got a real election with decent choices and even if we lost the country didn't.
Somebody tell me that this is better.
question everything
(47,481 posts)There are too many who are making selfish decisions, not thinking of the good of the country. The only difference that it used to be the Democrats. The Republicans used to behave in lockstep. So it was kinda amusing to see them crumbling.
Too bad we are back to our old ways.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)FDR tried to oust conservative Democrats in 1938 because a Democratic majority wasn't doing him any good when too many Democrats sided with the GOP to effectively control congress.
California has a fucked up system that allows the potential for a GOP candidate to slip by, although this time it looks like that won't be the case.
We've had a truly liberal congress for 3 very brief periods in this nation's history... FDR's first term, after JFK's assassination, and after Watergate. Every other time the "conservative coalition" of conservadems and Republicans have controlled the agenda and stifled any real reform. Yes any Democratic congress is better than a Republican one, but if we really want to change things in this country we need real liberals.