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

[Figueira]

Link

Doesn't say which district, but she specified that she isn't running against Katherine Clark.

[Figueira]

Well, you only need to live in the state, not the congressional district. (I always assumed this was because of redistricting. Am I right on that?) If she somehow won a Democratic primary, that may actually cause the GOP to pick up an MA seat. That's a big if in itself, though.

Only if it happened in the sixth or ninth districts.

This, and even those are pretty unlikely unless Wu is more toxic than I'm aware.

[Figueira]

I guess the main problem for her is I don't know that any Reps are retiring in MA.

[Figueira]

I guess the main problem for her is I don't know that any Reps are retiring in MA.

I see her as likely to primary Seth Moulton. Isn't he considered the least liberal of Massachusetts's 9 Representatives?

Nah, that would be Lynch. Moulton got in by primarying someone using a moderate hero campaign, but he's really a generic Democrat.

[Figueira]

I guess the main problem for her is I don't know that any Reps are retiring in MA.

I see her as likely to primary Seth Moulton. Isn't he considered the least liberal of Massachusetts's 9 Representatives?

Nah, that would be Lynch. Moulton got in by primarying someone using a moderate hero campaign, but he's really a generic Democrat.

Wouldn't Lynch's seat (MA-08) be the most likely to flip with a proud SJW Dem candidate?  It's full of blue collar union types in Southie and probably swung significantly toward Trump. 

Nope, it swung heavily towards Clinton like most of the Boston metro. Per Daily Kos, Obama won it by 17 points in 2012, and Clinton won it by 26 points. I don't see it flipping any time soon regardless of who is nominated.

[Figueira]

It doesn't look like a landslide Democrat district (55-42 in 2010), so it wouldn't take much for a Republican to beat a feminist gamer and blogger.

Redistricting has occurred since 2010.

[Figueira]

I thought Brianna Wu was a City Councilwoman in Boston? I swear to God I remember hearing about a woman of Asian descent with the last name of Wu being in municipal politics and being touted as a future leader.

That's Michelle Wu.

[Figueira]

In all seriousness, if she tries to primary anyone I hope it's Lynch.

You got your wish!

[Figueira]

Anyway, if she's exactly the same as Lynch except on abortion, I'll support Wu, but if she's running as a sociallyliberalbutfiscallyconservative, no thanks. I don't live in the district though. Then again, who knows where I'll be in 2018?

[Figueira]

Apparently she is pro-union.

[Figueira]

Could someone explain to me what is so horrible about Wu?

[Figueira]

I'll support Wu just so this isn't a "Muh ess jay double-yous" circlejerk. Plus, f**k Lynch.

No no, it's "ess jay double jews."

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Figueira]

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.

For me - they are mirror images of each other. So - i equally dislike BOTH...

People who care about racial issues are JUST AS BAD as neo-Nazis!!!!!1

[Figueira]

Wu is objectionable for many reasons: a lot of her rhetoric is very similar to your typical Republican playbook: "public school reform" pushing for charter institutions (plus a really dodgy perspective on the idea of education that I really don't like: seeing education as an "investment" made in children that needs to be recouped rather than an essential human right); talking about the need for start-up companies and how entrepreneurs are leaving the state is often talk to justify corporate tax cuts and deregulation, all bad for working class people) which suggests to me that she'd not be a good voice in the house for the area.  I'd argue that her social positions aren't the reason to criticise her - certainly it really wasn't her fault that she ended up getting dragged into the mire that she ended up in in terms of continual abuse from the awful bit of the internet, which is something that should never happen to anyone: although she's certainly lacking in diplomacy, even for people who broadly agree with her on most things.

Lynch is better by far, although not perfect.  But who is, really!.

Where are you getting this info about her positions?

[Figueira]

It's also important to note that while Lynch has never faced a primary challenge in this district, he crushed several opponents in the previous district which, while not a perfect match, contained a lot of the same areas.

[Figueira]

So ice age are you saying Lynch is more East Ukrainian and Wu more West Ukrainian?

couldn't have put it better myself!

A bit of an exaggeration though since they're both pretty solidly on the left on social and economic issues.

[Figueira]

I wish there was a third Democrat running honestly. Lynch is probably the better of the two but they're both kind of terrible, in different ways.