MA-08: Brianna Wu running against Lynch in 2018 Democratic primary

[Intell]

I'd be in favor of Wu, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Lynch wins. It's Massachusetts, Democrats there are pretty good compared to Democrats in a lot of other places.

I would like more union folks in Congress anyway though. There are far too few of them these days.

Votes against lynch even though he's not a conservative dem, or third way dem :/

[smoltchanov]

I'd be in favor of Wu, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Lynch wins. It's Massachusetts, Democrats there are pretty good compared to Democrats in a lot of other places.

I would like more union folks in Congress anyway though. There are far too few of them these days.

Votes against lynch even though he's not a conservative dem, or third way dem :/

You can't be "too liberal" for some folks. And if you vote against at least one piece of liberal program - you are already a conservative))) (the same, in fact, takes place in Republican party too, but in "mirror image")

[Intell]

I'd be in favor of Wu, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Lynch wins. It's Massachusetts, Democrats there are pretty good compared to Democrats in a lot of other places.

I would like more union folks in Congress anyway though. There are far too few of them these days.

Votes against lynch even though he's not a conservative dem, or third way dem :/

You can't be "too liberal" for some folks. And if you vote against at least one piece of liberal program - you are already a conservative))) (the same, in fact, takes place in Republican party too, but in "mirror image")

Obamacare? He voted against that from the left.

[smoltchanov]

I'd be in favor of Wu, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Lynch wins. It's Massachusetts, Democrats there are pretty good compared to Democrats in a lot of other places.

I would like more union folks in Congress anyway though. There are far too few of them these days.

Votes against lynch even though he's not a conservative dem, or third way dem :/

You can't be "too liberal" for some folks. And if you vote against at least one piece of liberal program - you are already a conservative))) (the same, in fact, takes place in Republican party too, but in "mirror image")

Obamacare? He voted against that from the left.

I know that. But so is happened he voted with Republicans that time (though by different reason). For "loyalists" that's more then enough...

[Intell]

I'd be in favor of Wu, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Lynch wins. It's Massachusetts, Democrats there are pretty good compared to Democrats in a lot of other places.

I would like more union folks in Congress anyway though. There are far too few of them these days.

Votes against lynch even though he's not a conservative dem, or third way dem :/

You can't be "too liberal" for some folks. And if you vote against at least one piece of liberal program - you are already a conservative))) (the same, in fact, takes place in Republican party too, but in "mirror image")

Obamacare? He voted against that from the left.

I know that. Buy so is happened he voted with Republicans that time (though by different reason). For "loyalists" that's more then enough...

I think they class him conservatove because of muh abortion.

His record on serving his consticuents has been exemplary, which won't matched by Wu who just wants the attention.

[smoltchanov]

I'd be in favor of Wu, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Lynch wins. It's Massachusetts, Democrats there are pretty good compared to Democrats in a lot of other places.

I would like more union folks in Congress anyway though. There are far too few of them these days.

Votes against lynch even though he's not a conservative dem, or third way dem :/

You can't be "too liberal" for some folks. And if you vote against at least one piece of liberal program - you are already a conservative))) (the same, in fact, takes place in Republican party too, but in "mirror image")

Obamacare? He voted against that from the left.

I know that. Buy so is happened he voted with Republicans that time (though by different reason). For "loyalists" that's more then enough...

I think they class him conservatove because of muh abortion.

His record on serving his consticuents has been exemplary, which won't matched by Wu who just wants the attention.

May be. I am pro-choice myself, but don't hold that against him. There are lots of pro-life Democrats in his district, and i also heard good words about his constituent services.

[Figueira]

If Lynch is really that great at constituent services, he'll probably win. I think it's good that he's getting challenged though.

[smoltchanov]

If Lynch is really that great at constituent services, he'll probably win. I think it's good that he's getting challenged though.

I also consider it a positive thing. But one question: why must all challenges to come "from the left" in Democratic case, and "from the right" - in Republican?

[Figueira]

If Lynch is really that great at constituent services, he'll probably win. I think it's good that he's getting challenged though.

I also consider it a positive thing. But one question: why must all challenges to come "from the left" in Democratic case, and "from the right" - in Republican?

They don't. Seth Moulton challenged John Tierney from the center (although there was honestly not much difference between the two). For an example on the other side, see Roger Marshall and Tim Huelskamp (I might be wrong about this).

However, the reason why primary challengers tend to come from the extremes is presumably because primary electorates are usuallh further to their party's extreme than the incumbent because the incumbent has to appeal to the general electorate as well.

Also we don't know that Wu is actually to the left of Lynch on everything. I suspect she'll position herself that way, though.

[smoltchanov]

^ Good examples (though i don't think that Marshall will be more moderate then Huelskamp - may be only less vocal and shrill, and Moulton is quite liberal by my standards and his challenge of Tierney was, IMHO, more because of scandals, surrounding him (Tierney), not ideology). But in 90% of cases it's so. And question remains - why Democratic activists frequently try to challenge somewhat less liberal (but still - not conservative) Democratic officeholders even when it's clear that "bold progressive" can't win general election (if he/she - can, situation is different)? And similar situation among republicans? Why this endless "desire for purity" even at a price of electoral loss?

[VPH]

I will fully support Rep. Lynch.

[Figueira]

^ Good examples (though i don't think that Marshall will be more moderate then Huelskamp - may be only less vocal and shrill, and Moulton is quite liberal by my standards and his challenge of Tierney was, IMHO, more because of scandals, surrounding him (Tierney), not ideology). But in 90% of cases it's so. And question remains - why Democratic activists frequently try to challenge somewhat less liberal (but still - not conservative) Democratic officeholders even when it's clear that "bold progressive" can't win general election (if he/she - can, situation is different)? And similar situation among republicans? Why this endless "desire for purity" even at a price of electoral loss?

I don't think there's a chance of an electoral loss in MA-08. It's a pretty solidly Democratic district. Give that, if you're a progressive, why wouldn't you choose the more progressive option in the primary?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

So that you have an agreeable representative who can fight for your district and have friends willing to work with him for his district. There is no egregious difference that will affect national policy.

[smoltchanov]

^ Good examples (though i don't think that Marshall will be more moderate then Huelskamp - may be only less vocal and shrill, and Moulton is quite liberal by my standards and his challenge of Tierney was, IMHO, more because of scandals, surrounding him (Tierney), not ideology). But in 90% of cases it's so. And question remains - why Democratic activists frequently try to challenge somewhat less liberal (but still - not conservative) Democratic officeholders even when it's clear that "bold progressive" can't win general election (if he/she - can, situation is different)? And similar situation among republicans? Why this endless "desire for purity" even at a price of electoral loss?

I don't think there's a chance of an electoral loss in MA-08. It's a pretty solidly Democratic district. Give that, if you're a progressive, why wouldn't you choose the more progressive option in the primary?

MA-08 is, surely, solidly Democratic, but are you so sure that it's so "progressive" IMHO, it's closer to "working class Democratic"-type districts, which are populist, but not "progressive"...

[henster]

I doubt anybody in this district even knows or cares what Gamergate is, this is basically some chick against an incumbent.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/pokemon-go-chauffeur-safari-boston/

I guess I'm enthusiastic about Lynch now.

[Figueira]

^ Good examples (though i don't think that Marshall will be more moderate then Huelskamp - may be only less vocal and shrill, and Moulton is quite liberal by my standards and his challenge of Tierney was, IMHO, more because of scandals, surrounding him (Tierney), not ideology). But in 90% of cases it's so. And question remains - why Democratic activists frequently try to challenge somewhat less liberal (but still - not conservative) Democratic officeholders even when it's clear that "bold progressive" can't win general election (if he/she - can, situation is different)? And similar situation among republicans? Why this endless "desire for purity" even at a price of electoral loss?

I don't think there's a chance of an electoral loss in MA-08. It's a pretty solidly Democratic district. Give that, if you're a progressive, why wouldn't you choose the more progressive option in the primary?

MA-08 is, surely, solidly Democratic, but are you so sure that it's so "progressive" IMHO, it's closer to "working class Democratic"-type districts, which are populist, but not "progressive"...

It swung towards Clinton in 2016. It's a rich suburban district, not a working-class populist district. But they'll vote for any Democrat over any Republican. Just like they've consistently re-elected Lynch despite him being not that great a fit for the district. He's better, in their eyes, than a Republican.

But regardless of whether most Democratic primary voters are progressive, the point stands that if all you care about is how "progressive" a candidate is, you'll vote for the candidate who is the most "progressive" if general election electability isn't a factor. I don't think such people are a majority of Democratic primary voters in the district, and I think it's debatable whether Wu is really more progressive than Lynch, hence I expect Lynch to beat Wu.

[Figueira]

I doubt anybody in this district even knows or cares what Gamergate is, this is basically some chick against an incumbent.

Ironically I think the fact that she's a video game developer will probably hurt her a lot, not the fact that a few misogynistic video game nerds have a problem with her.

[smoltchanov]

^ Good examples (though i don't think that Marshall will be more moderate then Huelskamp - may be only less vocal and shrill, and Moulton is quite liberal by my standards and his challenge of Tierney was, IMHO, more because of scandals, surrounding him (Tierney), not ideology). But in 90% of cases it's so. And question remains - why Democratic activists frequently try to challenge somewhat less liberal (but still - not conservative) Democratic officeholders even when it's clear that "bold progressive" can't win general election (if he/she - can, situation is different)? And similar situation among republicans? Why this endless "desire for purity" even at a price of electoral loss?

I don't think there's a chance of an electoral loss in MA-08. It's a pretty solidly Democratic district. Give that, if you're a progressive, why wouldn't you choose the more progressive option in the primary?

MA-08 is, surely, solidly Democratic, but are you so sure that it's so "progressive" IMHO, it's closer to "working class Democratic"-type districts, which are populist, but not "progressive"...

It swung towards Clinton in 2016. It's a rich suburban district, not a working-class populist district. But they'll vote for any Democrat over any Republican. Just like they've consistently re-elected Lynch despite him being not that great a fit for the district. He's better, in their eyes, than a Republican.

But regardless of whether most Democratic primary voters are progressive, the point stands that if all you care about is how "progressive" a candidate is, you'll vote for the candidate who is the most "progressive" if general election electability isn't a factor. I don't think such people are a majority of Democratic primary voters in the district, and I think it's debatable whether Wu is really more progressive than Lynch, hence I expect Lynch to beat Wu.

Thanks! But i still have some doubts that, say, Brockton and South Boston are so "rich suburban". But you are closer to district then i am...

[Figueira]

^ Good examples (though i don't think that Marshall will be more moderate then Huelskamp - may be only less vocal and shrill, and Moulton is quite liberal by my standards and his challenge of Tierney was, IMHO, more because of scandals, surrounding him (Tierney), not ideology). But in 90% of cases it's so. And question remains - why Democratic activists frequently try to challenge somewhat less liberal (but still - not conservative) Democratic officeholders even when it's clear that "bold progressive" can't win general election (if he/she - can, situation is different)? And similar situation among republicans? Why this endless "desire for purity" even at a price of electoral loss?

I don't think there's a chance of an electoral loss in MA-08. It's a pretty solidly Democratic district. Give that, if you're a progressive, why wouldn't you choose the more progressive option in the primary?

MA-08 is, surely, solidly Democratic, but are you so sure that it's so "progressive" IMHO, it's closer to "working class Democratic"-type districts, which are populist, but not "progressive"...

It swung towards Clinton in 2016. It's a rich suburban district, not a working-class populist district. But they'll vote for any Democrat over any Republican. Just like they've consistently re-elected Lynch despite him being not that great a fit for the district. He's better, in their eyes, than a Republican.

But regardless of whether most Democratic primary voters are progressive, the point stands that if all you care about is how "progressive" a candidate is, you'll vote for the candidate who is the most "progressive" if general election electability isn't a factor. I don't think such people are a majority of Democratic primary voters in the district, and I think it's debatable whether Wu is really more progressive than Lynch, hence I expect Lynch to beat Wu.

Thanks! But i still have some doubts that, say, Brockton and South Boston are so "rich suburban". But you are closer to district then i am...

Maybe not Brockton or South Boston, but the US Census says the district has a median household income of around $80,000, which is pretty high. People seem to be making assumptions about the district based on the fact that Lynch represents it.

And despite the fact that I live in the state, I don't actually know much about that district. I'm just going off the data.

[Brittain33]

South Boston has less than 5% of the district's population, and it's not as monolithic as it once was. I don't see how Brianna Wu wins but it isn't 1930 here any longer. South Boston even gets outvoted for "its own" state senate district these days. 

[Figueira]

So that you have an agreeable representative who can fight for your district and have friends willing to work with him for his district. There is no egregious difference that will affect national policy.

Well sure, I agree with you. But I was discussing broadly why someone might prefer progressive candidates in general.

[progressive85]

I think Lynch is very well-entrenched.  He was a coal miner I think, or an iron-steelworker, and I think that's a part of his biography that people really like.

[Zioneer]

I'd be in favor of Wu, but I wouldn't be too broken up if Lynch wins. It's Massachusetts, Democrats there are pretty good compared to Democrats in a lot of other places.

I would like more union folks in Congress anyway though. There are far too few of them these days.

Votes against lynch even though he's not a conservative dem, or third way dem :/

I guess if I could trade Lynch for another union man in another district, that'd be what I would prefer. I dunno. I don't really have strong feelings about this race.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Ok, where do I go to donate money to Lynch? If there's anything I dislike more than the alt-right, it's social justice warriors.