Should Schumer, Menendez and Cardin all be primaried?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:38:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Should Schumer, Menendez and Cardin all be primaried?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Should Schumer, Menendez and Cardin all be primaried?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 81

Author Topic: Should Schumer, Menendez and Cardin all be primaried?  (Read 7857 times)
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2015, 06:54:39 AM »

Menendez because of his legal troubles.

But no, I don't think Cardin and Schumer should be primaried just because they disagreed with the president on one foreign policy vote.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 14, 2015, 11:16:42 AM »

I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 14, 2015, 04:48:06 PM »

I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..

I find myself agreeing with your posts more and more. Yes, Voters should absolutely be more willing to seek out more and better alternatives. Bob Menendez, Chuck Schumer, and Ben Cardin are obviously not the best that state can do.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2015, 05:11:46 PM »

Tbh, the Tea Party has the right idea. Why bother keeping useless establishment backbench politicians in your damn safe states! Makes no sense, really.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 14, 2015, 06:12:24 PM »

Tbh, the Tea Party has the right idea. Why bother keeping useless establishment backbench politicians in your damn safe states! Makes no sense, really.

Yes, the only problem with the Tea Party is that the candidates they want to replace these people with are complete wackos.
Logged
PJ
Politics Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,789
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 14, 2015, 11:03:29 PM »

Manchin is terrible but he's the best we can expect from West Virginia. New York, New Jersey, and Maryland can do better though.

I reject this. Sure, the current Democratic Party is not a good fit for West Virginia, but the state is not inherently conservative by any means. The right left-wing arguments could sway it.

The problem is when West Virginians realize that what you're telling the other states (for example the states that like environmentalism more), isn't the same as what you're telling their state.

Yeah, 84285 is correct. Telling West Virginians something different than the rest of the country is what happens now, and it's not the best strategy from a left-wing standpoint. It's not as if West Virginia is a particularly pro-Israel state (it did produce Nick Rahall, one of the most pro-Palestine politicians out there). Its history as a primarily working class state had given it a more left leaning history and a strong relationship with labor unions that the Democrats don't bother to take advantage of (because the Democrats aren't really attached to organized labor at all, tbh). The WV Democratic Party has actually contributed to the very flawed mentality about coal that pervades Appalachian politics: you're either in favor of coal, or you've declared on a war on it. The region's relationship with coal has not been an entirely positive one; in fact it's been negative in several aspects. That's what the Democrats ought to focus on if they want to reverse the area's attitudes on environmentalism and left-wing politics
Logged
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2015, 11:27:50 PM »

I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
The problem is of course, that this can backfire. Namely, that if you primary, and lose, then the congressman finds will get the idea that they have even freer reign to be right wing/terrible, because you've shown your hand, and they've proven they can beat it. Furthermore, it sends the signal to other questionable congressmen that they don't need to worry about a successful primary challenge. This is why if you are going to primary someone, you need to make sure to win. And one thing Democrats literally never win is a primary challenge. And even when they win, they still manage to lose (ex. Lieberman).

Also, this is just my view, but there are maybe 10-15 issues that I'd prefer to put as litmus tests over this. If the deal somehow got blocked maybe it would have been different, but in the end, nothing bad actually happened.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2015, 11:41:28 AM »

I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
The problem is of course, that this can backfire. Namely, that if you primary, and lose, then the congressman finds will get the idea that they have even freer reign to be right wing/terrible, because you've shown your hand, and they've proven they can beat it. Furthermore, it sends the signal to other questionable congressmen that they don't need to worry about a successful primary challenge. This is why if you are going to primary someone, you need to make sure to win. And one thing Democrats literally never win is a primary challenge. And even when they win, they still manage to lose (ex. Lieberman).

Also, this is just my view, but there are maybe 10-15 issues that I'd prefer to put as litmus tests over this. If the deal somehow got blocked maybe it would have been different, but in the end, nothing bad actually happened.

It's because a good chunk of the left (the base, not the actual politicians) is deeply anti-semitic and views Jews as inherently suspect in terms of loyalty. That's why politicians like Casey or Barrow are allowed to differ from Democratic orthodoxy in terms of major issues, but the second Jewish politicians dare to differ from the President - by taking a position long held by the party before this President completely altered our foreign policy, mind you - the calls come for their heads.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2015, 11:50:34 AM »

I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
The problem is of course, that this can backfire. Namely, that if you primary, and lose, then the congressman finds will get the idea that they have even freer reign to be right wing/terrible, because you've shown your hand, and they've proven they can beat it. Furthermore, it sends the signal to other questionable congressmen that they don't need to worry about a successful primary challenge. This is why if you are going to primary someone, you need to make sure to win. And one thing Democrats literally never win is a primary challenge. And even when they win, they still manage to lose (ex. Lieberman).

Also, this is just my view, but there are maybe 10-15 issues that I'd prefer to put as litmus tests over this. If the deal somehow got blocked maybe it would have been different, but in the end, nothing bad actually happened.

I never said it was a good strategy, but it needs to be viewed in a more neutral-to-positive light.

I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
The problem is of course, that this can backfire. Namely, that if you primary, and lose, then the congressman finds will get the idea that they have even freer reign to be right wing/terrible, because you've shown your hand, and they've proven they can beat it. Furthermore, it sends the signal to other questionable congressmen that they don't need to worry about a successful primary challenge. This is why if you are going to primary someone, you need to make sure to win. And one thing Democrats literally never win is a primary challenge. And even when they win, they still manage to lose (ex. Lieberman).

Also, this is just my view, but there are maybe 10-15 issues that I'd prefer to put as litmus tests over this. If the deal somehow got blocked maybe it would have been different, but in the end, nothing bad actually happened.

It's because a good chunk of the left (the base, not the actual politicians) is deeply anti-semitic and views Jews as inherently suspect in terms of loyalty. That's why politicians like Casey or Barrow are allowed to differ from Democratic orthodoxy in terms of major issues, but the second Jewish politicians dare to differ from the President - by taking a position long held by the party before this President completely altered our foreign policy, mind you - the calls come for their heads.

I'm Jewish. Casey is in a swingy state (although I'd be okay with primarying him too if the primaryer is electable) and Barrow was in a swing district. Zionism is already a terrible and bigoted ideology; defending bigotry by accusing other people of bigotry just makes it worse.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2015, 12:02:08 PM »
« Edited: September 15, 2015, 12:05:40 PM by Horus »

I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
The problem is of course, that this can backfire. Namely, that if you primary, and lose, then the congressman finds will get the idea that they have even freer reign to be right wing/terrible, because you've shown your hand, and they've proven they can beat it. Furthermore, it sends the signal to other questionable congressmen that they don't need to worry about a successful primary challenge. This is why if you are going to primary someone, you need to make sure to win. And one thing Democrats literally never win is a primary challenge. And even when they win, they still manage to lose (ex. Lieberman).

Also, this is just my view, but there are maybe 10-15 issues that I'd prefer to put as litmus tests over this. If the deal somehow got blocked maybe it would have been different, but in the end, nothing bad actually happened.

It's because a good chunk of the left (the base, not the actual politicians) is deeply anti-semitic and views Jews as inherently suspect in terms of loyalty. That's why politicians like Casey or Barrow are allowed to differ from Democratic orthodoxy in terms of major issues, but the second Jewish politicians dare to differ from the President - by taking a position long held by the party before this President completely altered our foreign policy, mind you - the calls come for their heads.
No one on the left wants all Jews to move to Israel to be slaughtered for the end times. Only people in your party want that.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2015, 12:17:09 PM »

No.

They are three Democrat Senators who have an ounce of common sense on the Iran issue.

It's all the other clueless Democrat Senators who should be primaried.
Logged
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2015, 04:20:35 PM »


I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
The problem is of course, that this can backfire. Namely, that if you primary, and lose, then the congressman finds will get the idea that they have even freer reign to be right wing/terrible, because you've shown your hand, and they've proven they can beat it. Furthermore, it sends the signal to other questionable congressmen that they don't need to worry about a successful primary challenge. This is why if you are going to primary someone, you need to make sure to win. And one thing Democrats literally never win is a primary challenge. And even when they win, they still manage to lose (ex. Lieberman).

Also, this is just my view, but there are maybe 10-15 issues that I'd prefer to put as litmus tests over this. If the deal somehow got blocked maybe it would have been different, but in the end, nothing bad actually happened.

I never said it was a good strategy, but it needs to be viewed in a more neutral-to-positive light.

I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
The problem is of course, that this can backfire. Namely, that if you primary, and lose, then the congressman finds will get the idea that they have even freer reign to be right wing/terrible, because you've shown your hand, and they've proven they can beat it. Furthermore, it sends the signal to other questionable congressmen that they don't need to worry about a successful primary challenge. This is why if you are going to primary someone, you need to make sure to win. And one thing Democrats literally never win is a primary challenge. And even when they win, they still manage to lose (ex. Lieberman).

Also, this is just my view, but there are maybe 10-15 issues that I'd prefer to put as litmus tests over this. If the deal somehow got blocked maybe it would have been different, but in the end, nothing bad actually happened.

It's because a good chunk of the left (the base, not the actual politicians) is deeply anti-semitic and views Jews as inherently suspect in terms of loyalty. That's why politicians like Casey or Barrow are allowed to differ from Democratic orthodoxy in terms of major issues, but the second Jewish politicians dare to differ from the President - by taking a position long held by the party before this President completely altered our foreign policy, mind you - the calls come for their heads.

I'm Jewish. Casey is in a swingy state (although I'd be okay with primarying him too if the primaryer is electable) and Barrow was in a swing district. Zionism is already a terrible and bigoted ideology; defending bigotry by accusing other people of bigotry just makes it worse.
If a strategy is not good, why should it be perceived in a neutral to positive light period? Also, among other things, learn what the term bolded means.
I don't see why "primarying" should be considered some kind of cruel punishment reserved for the worst politicians ever. If the party's voters want someone other than the incumbent to be their nominee, they should be able to make that happen..
The problem is of course, that this can backfire. Namely, that if you primary, and lose, then the congressman finds will get the idea that they have even freer reign to be right wing/terrible, because you've shown your hand, and they've proven they can beat it. Furthermore, it sends the signal to other questionable congressmen that they don't need to worry about a successful primary challenge. This is why if you are going to primary someone, you need to make sure to win. And one thing Democrats literally never win is a primary challenge. And even when they win, they still manage to lose (ex. Lieberman).

Also, this is just my view, but there are maybe 10-15 issues that I'd prefer to put as litmus tests over this. If the deal somehow got blocked maybe it would have been different, but in the end, nothing bad actually happened.

It's because a good chunk of the left (the base, not the actual politicians) is deeply anti-semitic and views Jews as inherently suspect in terms of loyalty. That's why politicians like Casey or Barrow are allowed to differ from Democratic orthodoxy in terms of major issues, but the second Jewish politicians dare to differ from the President - by taking a position long held by the party before this President completely altered our foreign policy, mind you - the calls come for their heads.
You're the one who literally thinks that Obama is some sort of Manchurian Candidate for the Ayatollah, so I don't think it's necessary to deal with your demented conspiracy theories.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2015, 06:44:27 PM »

If a strategy is not good, why should it be perceived in a neutral to positive light period? Also, among other things, learn what the term bolded means.

Sorry for not being clear. It might not be strategically a good idea all the time, but it shouldn't be seen as evil or insane like some people in this thread think it is.

I think that ethnic-based nation states, in general, are a bigoted concept.
Logged
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2015, 09:18:21 PM »

If a strategy is not good, why should it be perceived in a neutral to positive light period? Also, among other things, learn what the term bolded means.

Sorry for not being clear. It might not be strategically a good idea all the time, but it shouldn't be seen as evil or insane like some people in this thread think it is.

I think that ethnic-based nation states, in general, are a bigoted concept.
I mean I don't think it's evil to primary people you don't like, but if primarying someone makes them stronger, it could be seen as insane.

I would be more willing to discuss the second part via PM, but to note one thing: one could discuss "ethnic states" all day, but more importantly this isn't relevant to the point.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 15, 2015, 10:05:17 PM »

If a strategy is not good, why should it be perceived in a neutral to positive light period? Also, among other things, learn what the term bolded means.

Sorry for not being clear. It might not be strategically a good idea all the time, but it shouldn't be seen as evil or insane like some people in this thread think it is.

I think that ethnic-based nation states, in general, are a bigoted concept.
I mean I don't think it's evil to primary people you don't like, but if primarying someone makes them stronger, it could be seen as insane.

I would be more willing to discuss the second part via PM, but to note one thing: one could discuss "ethnic states" all day, but more importantly this isn't relevant to the point.

To be honest, I shouldn't have brought up the Zionism thing. I was just really angry at the time.
Logged
Anti-Bothsidesism
Somenamelessfool
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 718
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 19, 2015, 03:02:15 PM »

No. Because they would primary DWS.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.