To All: Should Dan Lipinski be Primaried?

[smoltchanov]

I am in a "may be" cathegory here. The district is Democratic, but still with enough ethnics, who think and vote approximately the same way as Lipinski does, and among urban Chicago's districts - still relatively the least liberal. I will not weep for him if he loses, and will not regret if he stays..

[smoltchanov]

I don't think Lipinski should be a high priority target. Take people like Feinstein, Cantwell, and especially Menendez out first, or if you want representatives, Jim Cooper and Mike Thompson are clearly too conservative for their districts, more so than Lipinski.

I absolutely don't see either of them as "too conservative for their districts". Thompson is simply a solid liberal, Feinstein, Cantwell and Menendez are liberals in at least 9 cases out of 10, and so on. A left-wing tea party raises it ugly head and still wants to rule? God forbid, in such case even Trump may turn to be better, as idiot as he is..

[smoltchanov]

I don't think Lipinski should be a high priority target. Take people like Feinstein, Cantwell, and especially Menendez out first, or if you want representatives, Jim Cooper and Mike Thompson are clearly too conservative for their districts, more so than Lipinski.

I absolutely don't see either of them as "too conservative for their districts". Thompson is simply a solid liberal, Feinstein, Cantwell and Menendez are liberals in at least 9 cases out of 10, and so on. A left-wing tea party raises it ugly head and still wants to rule? God forbid, in such case even Trump may turn to be better, as idiot as he is..

Surely you'd be supportive of primarying all the generic party line drones and replacing them with mavericks, as per your signature?

Mostly. Except very liberal and very conservative districts, which drones fill excellently...

[smoltchanov]

I don't think Lipinski should be a high priority target. Take people like Feinstein, Cantwell, and especially Menendez out first, or if you want representatives, Jim Cooper and Mike Thompson are clearly too conservative for their districts, more so than Lipinski.

I absolutely don't see either of them as "too conservative for their districts". Thompson is simply a solid liberal, Feinstein, Cantwell and Menendez are liberals in at least 9 cases out of 10, and so on. A left-wing tea party raises it ugly head and still wants to rule? God forbid, in such case even Trump may turn to be better, as idiot as he is..

Surely you'd be supportive of primarying all the generic party line drones and replacing them with mavericks, as per your signature?

Mostly. Except very liberal and very conservative districts, which drones fill excellently...

But by and large the most liberal and conservative members - whatever their flaws - are not party drones for the most part? It's largely "moderates" that stick behind rehearsed party lines, while the relative extremists do their own oddball thing. That's what I've never got about you - you simultaneously claim to dislike party fillers and like "mavericks", whilst also disliking the only actual source of "mavericks" in congress (the idealogical fringe).

For me - mavericks are people like Collins and Manchin in Senate, Peterson, Cuellar, Ros-Lehtinen in the House  (there are no better examples now). In the past "mavericks" were conservative Democrats (like Gramm and Stump) in mostly liberal since FDR time Democratic party, and liberal Republicans (Javits, Case. Mathias) in generally conservative Republican. People like Flake and Paul Sr. were never "mavericks" to me - being solid conservatives in conservative party. Yes, they really belong to Libertarian party, but no conservative in conservative party and no liberal in liberal party is a "maverick" to me... They (Flake, Paul, Amash, Jones) have their own "cockroaches in the head" (as Russians say), but no more then that..

[smoltchanov]

I don't really get the "He's a good fit for Democrats in his district" line. If Democrats in his district love him so much, then they won't primary him. If he is successfully primaried, then I guess he wasn't a good fit for his district's Democrats after all, was he?

Also they voted for Clinton and Obama, so a real Democrat should have no trouble in the GE.

People in his district writ large=/=the small but vocal left wing base trying to take him out. Look at his previous primaries-he turned them back handily.

Reread the bolded part of my post. No one is advocating that the "small but vocal left wing base" forcibly remove bigots like Lipinski from office. The people who decide whether he will be primaried are...the Democratic voters in his district. So we don't have to worry about dastardly liberal activists negating the will of the people.

English is a second language for me, but, IIRC, "should" is almost "must". That's why i answered "no". Of course, he can be primaried, and it's up to the people of his district to decide by whom, and whether he is worthy to be renominated. But if a question is "whether Lipinski must be primaried?" - then i repeat my "no". He fits his district well, IMHO, and District, while mostly Democratic, is not of ultraliberal type... Especially on social issues....

[smoltchanov]

Yes, because he's "pro-life". I know this forum is usually fine with limiting women's rights, but for me, it's a deal breaker.

Over 60% endorse primarying him .

What matters is how many people of IL-3 want to primary him. I have feelings that his district is much less liberal then Atlas population)))

[smoltchanov]

Some people on this forum are hilariously deluded. Obviously Lipinski has a particular appeal in his district given the demographics of his constituents, but this is a district Clinton won by 15% (by an even larger margin than Obama in 2012, too!); literally any Democrat nominated would have no trouble holding this district in a general election.

the fact that it's a seat few if any Dems would have trouble losing is irrelevant (mostly). He's a responsitive and effective member of Congress. If you don't like him, then feel free to attempt to primary him - but don't get your hopes up. His constituents know that he fights for them - and that's why he's won primary and primary.

it's very relevant. terrible representatives like lipinski—and any representative who voted against the ACA is terrible, full stop—may be grudgingly tolerated in districts where literally no one else could be elected. this is clearly not one of those districts, and so there's no reason not to upgrade.

Well, except for the fact that the vast majority of IL-3 don't want your "upgrade".

+100. Let people of IL-3 decide themselves, without "advices" from anybody, but first of all - "flaming progressives", who tend to give unsolicited advices everywhere. And we will respect their decision (looking in the past, when Lipinski beat "progressives" by 25+ margin, i am relatively sure about result)

[smoltchanov]

The real reason Lipinski should get primaried is that he represents the absolute worst of political dynasticism.

What about Kennedy's? Dingell's? And many many other...

[smoltchanov]

^ As i always say - district rules! It's up to the people of district to decide - who do they want to represent it. Progressive, moderate, conservative, member of dynasty or newcomer, and so on.... Can they may a mistake (in historical sense)? Of course, but then - they will correct it later themselves. People of LA-6 elected and reelected a patented racist John Rarick long after Civil Rights laws were passed. Probabbly because at that time they were racists too (most of them at least), and shared Rarick's views. When they changed enough - Rarick was narrowly defeated in Democratic primary (the district went for very conservative Republican, not "progressive Democrat", but it's another story). Let people of IL-3 decide themselves! Of course, everyone has right to challenge Lipinski, but no one must push them to do so. And then - let THEM decide...

[smoltchanov]

Dan Lipinski represents the worst aspects of the Democratic Party. And stop using "It's a conservative district" as an excuse. Come on. They voted for Hillary Clinton. This isn't West Virginia. He's a bigot, he's evil, and he is a relic of an era that we're trying to move past. Being an anti-LGBT Democrat in a Democratic district isn't "cute." It's disgusting and harmful, and people defending Lipinski, you're better than this.

Stop giving Clinton percentages as justification for "running progressives" first. It's ancestrally Democratic, but socially conservative district (as were many working class districts in Midwest few years ago), which still votes mostly Democratic because of economics. A lot of people there are pro-life and, at least, not especially pro-LGBT. Democrats lost a lot of districts (beginning with South, and now, working class districts in Rust Belt) exactly because of their maniacal tendency to impose a "desired type of candidates" even where they absolutely don't fit. Do you want to lose this one too? Let people of the district decide it THEMSELVES!!! After all - you pretend to be not only Democrat, but democrat too, don't you?

[smoltchanov]

Let people of the district decide it THEMSELVES!!!

Why bother having a Congressional elections forum then?

Congressional elections exist exactly for purpose of  giving people of the districts the possibility to decide who represent them THEMSELVES, only this time - represent them in Washington (and that's the only distinction of congressional elections from state legislative). It's no one else's business. I really hate when anyone outside of district interferes in local electoral process, and it doesn't matter for me who they are - Koch brothers on Republican side or rich liberal Holliwood actors and producerson Democratic. They both are, essentially, the same for me. Such questions must be decided by local people, who decide whom to send to Washington (in Congressional case) to represent THEIR (not party or someone else) interests there...

[smoltchanov]

If that's the case, both you and I should be immediately banned as we are in no place to discuss or judge Americans for the choices they make.

It's one thing to discuss, and another - demand that someone be primaried. Everyone is free to discuss, but only people of the district must decide whether someone deserves a primary, and act accordingly. If they are satisfied with their congressman -  it's nobody else's business, and other must respect their choice.

[smoltchanov]

Let people of the district decide it THEMSELVES!!!

Why bother having a Congressional elections forum then?

Congressional elections exist exactly for purpose of  giving people of the districts the possibility to decide who represent them THEMSELVES, only this time - represent them in Washington (and that's the only distinction of congressional elections from state legislative). It's no one else's business. I really hate when anyone outside of district interferes in local electoral process, and it doesn't matter for me who they are - Koch brothers on Republican side or rich liberal Holliwood actors and producerson Democratic. They both are, essentially, the same for me. Such questions must be decided by local people, who decide whom to send to Washington (in Congressional case) to represent THEIR (not party or someone else) interests there...

Weren't you lecturing me about Charlie Baker a while back?

Naturally i have my preferences. And Baker is one of my preferred politicians. I was always straight about it. But i never said, whom people of Massachussetts must vote - it's THEIR choice, not mine. If somebody would say - "if i would live in the district i would never vote for Lipinski and would help his possible primary opponent" - THAT would be absolutely fine with me. But when people, especially outside of district and even state, say that he must be primaried - excuse me, that's the question, which must be decided by people of the district, and ONLY by them. No one "must" anything to anyone else. If THEY wish - they will primary him, if not - he will be renominated unopposed. This year he already has an opponent, and, i hope, wins. That's all....

P.S. May be someone will dictate me whom must I vote for in local elections in Moscow the day after tomorrow?. I still think that i know better.

[smoltchanov]

In 2020: Should Donald Trump be beaten?

Atlas: no, the US is a socially conservative country, you authoritarian!

I do love the idea that someone who denies people their civil rights should not be challenged by his own party if his own district is somehow said to mirror his views.

If his district mirrors his views he may be challenged (if people of the district wish to do it), but it's very likely he will get reelected. And it's ONLY for people of the district (and courts if neccessary) to decide whether he denies some people their civil rights or not. It's absolutely no one else business... Again - if his views mirrors district's - he will get reelected exactly because of that.