Fearing Chaos, National Democrats Plunge Into Primary Fights
We’re doing it again. We’re doing it AGAIN.
...national Democrats have lunged into an impatient new phase of the 2018 primary season — one in which they are clashing more openly with candidates and local political chieftains in their drive to assemble a slate of recruits for the midterms.
In districts from Southern California to Little Rock, Ark., and upstate New York, the party has begun interceding to help the Democrats it sees as best equipped to battle Republicans in the fall.
The approach is laced with peril for a party divided over matters of ideology and political strategy, and increasingly dominated by activists who tend to resent what they see as meddling from Washington.
No shit! I’m going to sum up the teal deer (tl/dr) as follows. TRUST THE VOTERS. They know. That is what democracy is all about.
The national party never, ever seems to learn. They keep insisting on putting their big, fat thumbs on the scales, whether they know the district, the candidates, or the local issues. They do not get it that maybe voters want a voice in who they pick to run, and then they wonder why turnout sucks.
Look, I get it that California is weird and that we have that strange “top two” system, where the top two finishers in the primary are the ones who run in the general. I don’t like it, either. It completely squelches any third parties, and I don’t think that’s good. It’s usually resulted in a huge upsurge in Democratic representatives, to the point where we dominate Sacramento. Don’t worry, we still manage to find plenty of conflict anyhow. And that’s nice, but if someone wants to run on the American Independent ticket and a platform on the right to keep ferrets, then he should go for it. (I am not making that up).
And I understand that we have a chance to take back the House, and that this is very necessary. But this strategy is still stupid. Conor Lamb did not win because he was a relatively conservative Democrat. He won for a lot of different reasons, but mostly because he fit the district he ran in well (and also, voters have had it with Republicans. That, too). But the most “moderate” candidate is not always a good fit.
Take here in California, for instance. There’s a huge decrease in voters who registered as Republican...but then they don’t register as Democrats. They just don’t identify as any party at all. And the state Party shows a big split, too. There’s a reason Dianne Feinstein didn’t get the official gold seal of approval from the California Democratic Party. Back in 2016, they listened to feedback and re-did their entire system. It was about time. The alternative was total generation-based insurrection, with the new, younger voters supporting the more progressive candidates (and no, you do not get to hug the word “progressive” just because it’s a good word nowadays. We all know what we mean) and the senior and more powerful voters keeping the “moderate” line. There are plenty of districts in California where an ultraliberal candidate can win...and should, if that’s what the people want.
I realize that people are scared that if a more liberal candidate wins, that it will cost us the general, but that’s not necessarily true. Roy Moore was the nutso far-right pick, and he still nearly won because that is territory where white Republicans dominate. And the guy was a child molester! The Democratic base turned out like whoa, and that’s what we should focus on. That doesn’t happen if the message “we know better than you what’s good for you” gets through. That is not good, and it kills the vote. Choice is a good thing.
TRUST THE VOTERS, folks. The voters vote. I heard many, many people here saying of Hillary Clinton’s winning the primary, “well, she got more votes.” She certainly did. The voters can decide for themselves whether a more liberal candidate is a good idea, or whether they’d rather go with a moderate: what they perceive as a surer bet.
TRUST THE VOTERS. THE VOTERS KNOW.