IL-3 Dem Primary: Election Day!

[Gass3268]

I just realized, that PPP poll nailed the margin in this race.

[KingSweden]

It's almost like Beet never heard of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_gubernatorial_election,_1991

“Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard.”

Anyways, I’m bummed Newman lost. I was agnostic about this race until Lipinski went wayyyy overboard with his dirty tactics.

[Figueira]

Where did you get the impression that anyone cares what you think?

One can say this about any person for any post on this forum, definitely including you. Your silencing tactics will not work.

I never claimed otherwise. It's just that those sorts of "moderate" concern trolls have a tendency to think that everybody pays attention to their opinions.

[MAINEiac4434]

Kapartsky, I guess I'm just wondering if you'd feel the same about someone who was racist? Or an antisemitie? Misogynist? Would that be terrible, or not? Is it just homophobia that wouldn't condemn someone to meet your definition of "terrible"? If they said black and white people shouldn't be married, would that make someone terrible?

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm honestly just curious. Because I'd actually think it's kind of noble that you'd look for goodness in those people, when I can't.

We live in an imperfect culture. Almost everyone in it could be accurately described a 'racist' or a 'misogynist' to some extent, depending on how puritanical you want to be. Is it 'racist' to be more scared of a black person on the street than a white person? Is it 'misogynist' to believe that a man should pay for a first date? In both cases, if you look 'objectively', the answer is yes, but such things do not make the people themselves bad.

Being more scared of black people than white people simply because they are black is bad, and yes, makes that person a bad person.

Forcing someone not to pay on a first date is also bad, because you’re taking away that person’s freedom of choice. If she wants you to pay that’s fine, but you really shouldn’t force her not to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That’s where you’re wrong. How people treat other people is important. Yes, they’re complicated, but how you treat your fellow human is pretty fundamental in my opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I remember that Onion article too, but I think you misunderstood it (or at least have different interpertations). It wasn’t looking to redeem the horrible bigot who’s really good at barbecue. It was poking fun at the people who overlooked that person’s moral failures just because they enjoyed his barbecue.

And yes, if I did find out that someone I knew for a long time did not believe in interracial marriage, I’d probably cut off communication with that person completely.

It is not my job to change people’s minds. Look Who’s Coming to Dinner came out 50 years ago. We’ve moved passed this (and homophobia and misogyny) as a society. As a society we’ve agreed that Racism Is Bad and racists are Bad People at a fundamental level. The same standard applies for homophobia in my mind, though clearly as a society we haven’t reached that point completely yet, because notorious homophobe Dan Lipinski just won renomination.

Clearly we disagree, and we’re not gonna change each other’s minds. I do honestly think it's quite noble that you’d seek to find something redeemable in these people and change their views, because I don’t have the patience for that.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The last minute involvement from Susan B Anthony list probably made all the difference and more .

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

I was far too young to be politically aware in 06/08 so correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems reminiscent of Wynn/Edwards in MD-04 back in the day (or at least has the potential to be). An entrenched incumbent with views generally more conservative than their safe D district (I.e. Wynn supporting the Iraq War, estate tax repeal, Bush energy policy, etc) gets the first serious challenge of their career from a progressive insurgent and manages to hold on by the skin of their teeth (Wynn won the '06 D primary 49.7-46.4), but then goes on to get blown out the next cycle after demonstrating their weakness and vulnerability (Edwards beat Wynn 60-36 in '08). I do think a candidate other than Newman should run next time, someone who would perhaps be a better fit for the district, but I do think if she runs again she'll win and it won't be particularly close.

[Calthrina950]

Marie Newman ran a good campaign. But next time let's not go with a generic white liberal.

Yup. She pulled an Emily Cain.

Run to the district. Nominate someone pro-life, or at least not as strenuously pro-choice.

I am glad about the outcome. At least this preserves some ideological diversity within the Democratic caucus.

I mean Manchin and Cuellar and Costa were still gonna be there regardless...

I don't think running an anti-abortion candidate would be the best idea. But acting like the campaign is entirely about abortion is stupid. Find a candidate who is (1) a minority, and (2) can campaign on a variety of issues. Because there is a lot wrong with Lipinski.

In reality though I think Lipinski retires in 2020.

Also, dear homophobes in this thread: you are still scum.

The statement of an ideological extremist. It is unfortunate that such types seem to predominate on this board.

Where did you get the impression that anyone cares what you think?

I didn't get that impression from anywhere. Given how you and so many others here are willing to insult and denigrate others without giving them the benefit of the doubt, I thought it justified to strike back. But no matter. I have no interest in debating people who are clearly partisan and who like to attack people who they don't even know.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I was far too young to be politically aware in 06/08 so correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems reminiscent of Wynn/Edwards in MD-04 back in the day (or at least has the potential to be). An entrenched incumbent with views generally more conservative than their safe D district (I.e. Wynn supporting the Iraq War, estate tax repeal, Bush energy policy, etc) gets the first serious challenge of their career from a progressive insurgent and manages to hold on by the skin of their teeth (Wynn won the '06 D primary 49.7-46.4), but then goes on to get blown out the next cycle after demonstrating their weakness and vulnerability (Edwards beat Wynn 60-36 in '08). I do think a candidate other than Newman should run next time, someone who would perhaps be a better fit for the district, but I do think if she runs again she'll win and it won't be particularly close.

Will the presidential primary be on the ballot the same date as this primary? He's toast if so.

[BuckeyeNut]

I'll repeat myself:

Obama should have come down from 30,000 up to endorse Newman. Lipinski would have been wrecked.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

The last minute involvement from Susan B Anthony list probably made all the difference and more .

Big question is whether it made the difference for Rauner as well.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Seriously people, I wanted Newman to win also but we need to get our priorities straight. Running someone to Lipinski's left was worth a shot but he still won, and he is still going up against a Nazi sympathizer in November. This seat will probably easily remain in Lipinski's hands, but can we stop acting like Lipinski is his opponent's equal, or equal to any of the worst Republicans in Congress? Maybe if we're lucky, Lipinski will move a bit to the left to prevent a future primary battle. He is heads and tails better than his opponent though, and probably better than any Republican opponent. I wish him all the best in his new term in spite of any of the problems I have with him.

[Badger]

Not a Lipinski fan, but Lord. All these posts saying people should abstain voting between a socially conservative economically moderate to Liberal Democrat versus a literal neo-Nazi?!?

[Landslide Lyndon]

I could see Lipinski having Al Wynn's fate.
Narrowly beating a surprisingly strong challenge from the left only to get creamed two years later.
Unless of course he is smart enough to take the hint and retire.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread is a fascinating example of how political narratives develop, I guess.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

I may be wrong, but I expect Lipinski to take this as a sign that he needs to start/continue moving to the left on at least a few issues (healthcare, DREAMERS, min. wage, other economic stuff). Of course it likely won't be enough to satisfy most of the Newman supporters here, but it may be enough to keep his constituents happy in 2020 and quash enough interest in another challenge so soon.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

This thread is a fascinating example of how political narratives develop, I guess.

Seriously. I saw at least one person call Lipinski a corporate stooge despite the fact he was endorsed by AFL-CIO.

[Holmes]

"Am I out of touch? No, it's the AFL-CIO who is wrong."

[Donerail]

This thread is a fascinating example of how political narratives develop, I guess.

Seriously. I saw at least one person call Lipinski a corporate stooge despite the fact he was endorsed by AFL-CIO.

The interests of labor apparatchiks in a state like Illinois are far, far more aligned with those of the capitalist class than they are with the actual rank-and-file.

^also worth noting that a substantial portion of railroad employees are IBT, which isn't an AFL-CIO union, so there's not as much dissonance there as it may seem

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

This thread is a fascinating example of how political narratives develop, I guess.

Seriously. I saw at least one person call Lipinski a corporate stooge despite the fact he was endorsed by AFL-CIO.

The interests of labor apparatchiks in a state like Illinois are far, far more aligned with those of the capitalist class than they are with the actual rank-and-file.

^also worth noting that a substantial portion of railroad employees are IBT, which isn't an AFL-CIO union, so there's not as much dissonance there as it may seem

Hmm... I'm a little skeptical, but willing to reevaluate. Do either of you guys (and/or anyone else) have any good reading materials on labor in IL that I can use to inform myself here?

[NOVA Green]

This thread is a fascinating example of how political narratives develop, I guess.

Seriously. I saw at least one person call Lipinski a corporate stooge despite the fact he was endorsed by AFL-CIO.

The interests of labor apparatchiks in a state like Illinois are far, far more aligned with those of the capitalist class than they are with the actual rank-and-file.

^also worth noting that a substantial portion of railroad employees are IBT, which isn't an AFL-CIO union, so there's not as much dissonance there as it may seem

Hmm... I'm a little skeptical, but willing to reevaluate. Do either of you guys (and/or anyone else) have any good reading materials on labor in IL that I can use to inform myself here?

Although I am far from an expert on the arcane world of Labor Union politics within Illinois, in general when trying to look at how the "grassroots" rank and file members went in terms of endorsements, is to drill it down to the Local level.

I spent quite a few years working in Grassroots political activism in Ohio several decades back, much of it involving cross-over bridge building and mutual solidarity with my Labor Movement contacts on a wide variety of issues from environmental issues, racial inequality regarding African-Americans within the criminal justice system, solidarity work with the final last grasp of the UMWA and the strike of '93, etc....

Locals elect reps that go to the next level, usually Regional, and then to Statewide....

Depending upon the Union bylaws official endorsements will be handled differently.

Although I am NOT in any way shape or form an expert on Illinois politics, let alone this congressional district, I would suspect that Public sector employees in various Unions, possibly combined with out-sourced public service sector workers, tend to account for the Lion's share of the Union population....

From an historical or data collection standpoint, I would imagine that any Union endorsements (Including Locals that haven't made it to the next level up) that are not publicly posted would be protected under Collective Bargaining Laws, making it harder to discern how rank and file members within various locals and unions are voting when it comes to questions such as political endorsements.

Regardless of the stereotypes of the Labor Movement, generally Union endorsements occur from the ground up, moving through various levels, all the way to the top.

Still, like any elections voting endorsements from the rank and file might involve lower turnout elections or getting "fast-tracked" for key hot issues not involving collective bargaining issues such as wages, hours, and conditions....

My suspicion is that Lipinski's endorsement from various Unions had more to do with Union Reps taking the "safe side" in what was likely a general low turnout Union poll, and the areas in which there is a much higher level of Union Representation (Cook County) than the counties/areas in which the Progressive Dem challenger was running.

Also, as I mentioned yesterday in Metro areas like Chicago, one cannot underestimate the complexities of Ethnic alliances and messaging within a grassroots Democratic alliance and maybe the message of the relatively unknown "WASP Progressive Woman from the 'Burbs" didn't hit home within the Patchwork Quilt of Chi-Town and the Cook suburbs....

I suspect that Union household members voted Lipinski hard, and the real lesson is that if a Dem Progressive challenger wants to take on the windmill of machine politics, you gotta do it a bit more Bernie Sanders style in Chi-Town, where precinct evidence indicates he not only at least tied in the Latino Vote in the City (West Side Puerto Rican neighborhoods combined with a large and rapidly growing Mexican-American population in other parts of Metro), captured an estimated 35% of Black voters in Illinois, and..... basically got slaughtered by Upper Middle Class Anglos in the Chi-Town 'Burbs....

As I said last night would be really interesting to see an '08/'16 Dem Pres precinct map for this district, throw in some more local Statewide Dem Prim races to look at these Wards/Precincts, etc matched over with Demographics....

Long winded answer, but Cook County margins seem to indicate that the "Progressive Democrat" did worse than the "Conservative Democrat" in some of the most Democratic  parts of the district.....

Haven't even tried to look up and do compare/contrast on historical Dem Primary numbers, and not even sure if the IL DEM primary numbers have been posted yet....

Regardless 2020 isn't that far away, and I suspect the Neo-Nazi 'Pub nominee will get an "American X" style curb stomping in November '18 once his record gets widely broadcast throughout all of Metro Chicago, and that come 2020 we are more than likely to have a Progressive Dem representing this district...

[Landslide Lyndon]

I guess ol' Bernie's endorsement was once more as useful as a fart in a space suit.

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/976645469786001408

[Strudelcutie4427]

I guess ol' Bernie's endorsement was once more as useful as a fart in a space suit.

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/976645469786001408

Another Bernout

[Oryxslayer]

I guess ol' Bernie's endorsement was once more as useful as a fart in a space suit.

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/976645469786001408

Considering Sanders win nearly every precincts, its not a good analysis. I mean...:

[Badger]

I may be wrong, but I expect Lipinski to take this as a sign that he needs to start/continue moving to the left on at least a few issues (healthcare, DREAMERS, min. wage, other economic stuff). Of course it likely won't be enough to satisfy most of the Newman supporters here, but it may be enough to keep his constituents happy in 2020 and quash enough interest in another challenge so soon.

You are not wrong. Incidentally, I recently learned he's made statements that he has changed his position, or at least "modified" it regarding gay marriage. He'll never change on abortion of course, but perhaps he can take a backseat role on being co-sponsor on every major pro-life bill out there.

[muon2]

This thread is a fascinating example of how political narratives develop, I guess.

Seriously. I saw at least one person call Lipinski a corporate stooge despite the fact he was endorsed by AFL-CIO.

The interests of labor apparatchiks in a state like Illinois are far, far more aligned with those of the capitalist class than they are with the actual rank-and-file.

^also worth noting that a substantial portion of railroad employees are IBT, which isn't an AFL-CIO union, so there's not as much dissonance there as it may seem

Hmm... I'm a little skeptical, but willing to reevaluate. Do either of you guys (and/or anyone else) have any good reading materials on labor in IL that I can use to inform myself here?

The unions in IL have generally stayed away from social issues. They want the most support for issues that are directly about labor. In some ways they work like they did 30 years ago, with support throughout the political spectrum for politicians that support labor issues. There's even a "lunch pail Republicans" caucus that helps labor identify Pub friends on select issues. It was laughable that people thought Rauner would ever get right to work, since there are so number of Pubs in the legislature that don't support it, let alone all the Dems.

IL is not like WI or IN. As one labor leader who works in the Midwest told me, our biggest mistake in WI and IN is that after the 2010 election we suddenly realized we had no friends on the Pub side and no time to make them. They try not to make that mistake in IL, and that includes support for conservative Dems at both the state and federal levels.