Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: After California primaries, we update five race ratings (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, he wasn't. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IM

    Though obviously this result was a possibility from the beginning, all the candidates were surprised by the outcome. Are you suggesting he should've dropped out because polls could've shown him behind? At what point? Ballots were set in April. People started voting weeks ago, but a lot of people didn't make up their minds until the last few days. We're talking about a difference of a few thousand votes--this wasn't a lost cause. If there had been just one or two Democratic candidates, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is the system.

    I'm troubled by your suggestion that Aguilar was somehow entitled to the nomination. Yes, he ended up with the most votes, but what looks clear to you in hindsight looks a lot different in the midst of a campaign.

    •  this isn't about aguilar - it is about the (0+ / 0-)

      strongest candidate.  period.

      as a result of a weak candidate (plus several other outliers), now the seat is guaranteed republican in a democratic leaning district.

      damn! don't democrats/progressives EVER learn anything?  look at wisconsin.  look at michigan.  look at florida.

      this is what happens when republicans are in control.  is the ego of a distant candidate more important than stopping the damage done by republicans in office?

      sheesh.

      •  Strongest? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IM

        And would you be the one to make pre-primary determinations of who is the "strongest"? That assessment is not simple to make. (In this case, the party couldn't make it.)

        You'll note that the commenters who live in the district and have followed this race the longest are slower to blame any one candidate--"ego" or not. That's because this was a systematic failure.

        •  perhaps it is time for the democrats who want (0+ / 0-)

          to run hold local debates and caucuses PRIOR to the sham primary to see what their standing is with the voters.  any one with less than 20/30% of dem support should back the hell off.  there is NO chance of winning a primary when the margins are low and there are republicans who can cross over to kill off both candidates.

          democratic caucuses locally ONLY allowing registered dems to participate to determine who to put on these fake "primary" ballots - at least until the system is thrown out.

          i screamed at the top of my lungs when this initiative was put on the ballot in california - i said at the time my vote would be disenfranchised.  many on this very site supported the initiative claiming it would give "third parties" a voice.

          did it?

          nope.  

          it gave this election in THIS district to the republicans.

          how's that for a "third party"?  now, this particular district has a party of ONE - and that party's "primary" is the general with all other voters shut out.   someone else said it well when they said that the general has become the primary for the republican party and the rest of us are disenfranchised.

          sadly, those outside that district will be just as impacted by only having a republican eligible for the house (since that republican will vote on bills affecting the entire nation).

          stupid.  every single part of this is flat out stupid.  and california voters fell for it when the initiative was put on the ballot and passed.

          consequences.  we haz 'em now.

          •  Dems should do all they can (0+ / 0-)

            to pick up the pieces and figure out what went wrong here.  But they shouldn't blame someone who just ran a credible grassroots campaign.

            •  you're missing my point here. (0+ / 0-)

              blaming someone who put a republican in office is perfectly acceptable.  even if the dems had been closer - they still would have split the dem vote giving the seat to republicans.

              what is more important to you - the opportunity for someone to have their name on the   "faux-primary" ballot and then losing the opportunity to run in the general or determining which democrat would best be able to survive that "faux-primary" to be a contender in the general.

              this was a pyrrhic victory for kim.  he was able to "run" but he "lost" both the primary and the district for his party.

              this district outcome is a wake-up call for dems in california - now let's see how self-destructive the california party members really are in the next election or if they learn from this travesty.

              •  Please stop. (0+ / 0-)

                Kim did not "lose" the the district for the Party and you should stop saying so. He was a credible candidate who ran a strong, unquixotic campaign and lost.

                •  and now two republicans are running against (0+ / 0-)

                  each other in the general.

                  please stop defending the indefensible...

                  sorta like nader didn't cost gore the election, imho.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site