The pattern, the big picture, is to be centrist so that we can ALL work together.
Haley Stevens will fight for ALL, especially the working class. This monk grew up poor in the hood. He sees that real fighters do the right thing and not make stupid promises such as that they will not vote for Haley, if she wins the primary.
As indicated earlier, it is left wing nuts and "woke stupidity, that aided and abetted the voting of a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist to be prez. Oy vey!
It seems that left wing nuts, like sayed, are starting to show that they are a bunch of wussies. They try to be "hoity-toity", but they will never last in the hood, in this monk's very humble opinion.
I agree with a caveat, all of those Rs marching in lock step marched us into Donald Trump's three Republican nominations and two presidencies. Going along is fine, to a point, but look where it can lead. Another D problem is that the Rs don't let other political parties enter their primaries and the Dems should be centrist like they want, meaning keeping DSA members etc out of the primaries. Until the 2010s, this would have been unthinkable. Bernie was an independent for a reason.
I have said it before and I will say it again, we need a truly left party (and a truly conservative party) in this country. 4 (or more) parties or an abolishment of ALL parties might also cut down on some of the outright hatred that seems to be growing daily. It's not gonna happen, but a girl can dream.
The Bulwark usually has the balls to lay it all on the table. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bigger elephant in the room ignored than in this article. If you’ve been in Michigan recently (it’s my family home), you will be inundated with anti-El Sayed attack ads. The people paying for them are not our friends.
Wow. It seems the Democrats' radical, insane base has been liberated and inspired by the Platners and Mamdanis of the world, and is eating their more rational and moderate establishment alive. Huh. Where have we seen that before? All they are lacking is their own Donald Trump to focus their irrational "Kill the Rich!" rage, and they'll be ready to "Make America Great Again", only according to their own socialist vision.
Wouldn't it be just sweet justice if Dems won the races they need to win the Senate in Maine, NC, Ohio and Alaska, and then lost the Senate anyway, because an anti-Israel clown in Michigan took down a fat cartoon establishment loser with a weird voice - and then lost to a Republican who makes losing a habit in the general election. I'm certainly here for it.
El Sayed could not bring himself to condemn a guy who drove a car into a temple. That is not the mark of any form of "progressivism" I've ever heard of.
The Democratic party has been barking up the wrong Big Tent and if only they would stop all the biting they could get it right by 2028. If everyone who is a social democrat inside DSA just makes a real effort to help the Democratic party, by putting both feet inside the party instead of 9-1/2 toes stuck in their “movement" against other Democrats, maybe 2/3rds of Americans (including myself as a former moderate Republican turned Independent) would take a closer look at the Democratic party.
Such jabs can be strongly and definitively met with broadly acceptable and credible platforms, messaging, messengers, policy formation and real progress that won't ever be accomplished as long as MAGA and DSA keep running a 50/50 nation split scheme.
They're not forgetting it. They don't consider it significant. The far left sees MAGA and centrist Democrats as essentially equivalent. They don't see themselves as fighting to save the US from MAGA, they see themselves as fighting to save it from its entire political establishment.
woulda been nice to have a genuine conversation about this because I have nothing personal against your viewpoint but now understand you have been more interested in demeaning mine.
Just something left over from an interchange I had earlier today. If he had approached it differently, we could have had a better conversation. This topic deserves much more deliberation and consensus.
Why not get rid of the primary in favor of a pairwise rated contest? All voters would rate El-Sayed. All voters would rate Stevens. And all voters would rate Rogers. Each voter's ratings would indicate whether that voter prefers El-Sayed or Rogers, Stevens or Rogers, and Stevens or El-Sayed. Those preferences would be aggregated with the candidate preferred over both others winning the election.
With such a system, how a voter rates Stevens has no effect on the El-Sayed-Rogers race. How a voter rates El-Sayed has no effect on the Stevens-Rogers race. And, Republican voters' preferences between El-Sayed and Stevens count equally with Democratic voters, with no effect on Rogers's chances.
The closed primary system has GOT to go. It’s exacerbating the polarization of our political system, and causing the fragmentation of what I would hope would be the ‘anti-authoritarian, pro-reality’ segment of the country.
I am wondering at what point does the middle of each party break apart and form a centrist, technocratic party. Let the ends of the horseshoe fight it out while the rest of us get work done. To answer the question in the article of ‘why does no one ever ask the centrist candidate to back down’- it’s because in a purple state, you would assume that the extremist candidate would be less able to pull voters from the other side in a general election, which is what you need to do to win. If ‘operatives’ are asking this question, they should think about changing careers.
If only the left flank of the GOP would join the right flank of the Dems to form a coalition that would tell Republicans, no stupid fascist racism and nationalism, and also tell the Democrats, no stupid socialist tax increases, redistribution or attacks on Israel. You both need our votes to pass anything, and unless you play ball, we're shutting the whole thing down.
The GOP has been completely corrupted by Trump- anyone offended by (or just unable to weather) the separation from reality has left or is getting pushed out, from Jeff Flake to Cornyn. The rest have sold their soul to stay in, à la Susan Collins. But for voters who don’t pay attention, they seem like centrists, and a sensible choice. I think if there were another party where they could live not under the bullying influence of Trump, they’d go there instead. And a similar thing might happen to the dems, leaving the DSA to run in navy blue areas like NYC, New England, etc. But the longer the GOP persists as an outlet for the angry, aggrieved, racist dregs, supplemented by people who will just reflexively vote (R) because… trans people, while the two sides of the Dems split the remainder, the more there will be nothing to save on the right. We’re already in a place where we have a two party system where one party is interested in a rules-based democracy and the other isn’t. Biden was elected in 2020, in part because third party candidates stayed out (people don’t mention this much when they talk about 2024). In 2024- Jill Stein ran again (despite being ostricised by the Green Party in Germany because they didn’t want her to threaten the anti-Trump coalition), and she got almost a million votes. There were 26 candidates on the ballot around the country, most of whom weren’t on the ballot in enough states to functionally win the vote. Why is that allowed? I’m just saying- there are real structural weaknesses in our electoral system that exacerbate the factions in our party system. And neither party seems interested in fixing that- the Republicans because they benefit from it, and the Democrats because they can’t get their act together.
Also- to Scott Smith’s point- Rank choice voting also needs to be instituted everywhere. First-choice only voting only benefits the extremists. For crying out loud- Kennedy got 750k votes in the presidential election. Now he’s busy killing the NIH, the CDC, and bringing back measles. And peptides. Heaven help us all.
"I am wondering at what point does the middle of each party break apart and form a centrist, technocratic party."
With any first-choice-or-bust voting system, that can only work in one-party districts. While voters may dislike both parties, that doesn't mean that they don't have a higher priority for keeping one party out of office than the other. Only in a one-party district, where either there is no chance of the more odious party getting elected or there is no chance of keeping the more odious party out of office would that obstacle to a minor party change.
The pattern, the big picture, is to be centrist so that we can ALL work together.
Haley Stevens will fight for ALL, especially the working class. This monk grew up poor in the hood. He sees that real fighters do the right thing and not make stupid promises such as that they will not vote for Haley, if she wins the primary.
As indicated earlier, it is left wing nuts and "woke stupidity, that aided and abetted the voting of a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist to be prez. Oy vey!
It seems that left wing nuts, like sayed, are starting to show that they are a bunch of wussies. They try to be "hoity-toity", but they will never last in the hood, in this monk's very humble opinion.
I’ve never witnessed a comments section less lacking in self awareness than this one. Incredible.
I live here. Mike Rogers will win easily. We f’d up here guys
I remember after a Gore v Bush debate watching panels on the cable news outlets.
The Rs were in lockstep. The Ds attacked Gore for either being too liberal or too conservative, depending on their alignment.
And this basic dynamic remains why the D party remains a shitshow of squabbling stupidity
I agree with a caveat, all of those Rs marching in lock step marched us into Donald Trump's three Republican nominations and two presidencies. Going along is fine, to a point, but look where it can lead. Another D problem is that the Rs don't let other political parties enter their primaries and the Dems should be centrist like they want, meaning keeping DSA members etc out of the primaries. Until the 2010s, this would have been unthinkable. Bernie was an independent for a reason.
I have said it before and I will say it again, we need a truly left party (and a truly conservative party) in this country. 4 (or more) parties or an abolishment of ALL parties might also cut down on some of the outright hatred that seems to be growing daily. It's not gonna happen, but a girl can dream.
This:
The Sane NYC DSA vs the Crazy National DSA- A Guide for the Perplexed
If you are confused about what DSA is, the answer is that it is two very different organizations that I don't think can coexist for much longer
https://nathannewman.substack.com/p/the-sane-nyc-dsa-vs-the-crazy-national
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/aipac-michigan-senate-primary-stevens-el-sayed/73179115
The Bulwark usually has the balls to lay it all on the table. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bigger elephant in the room ignored than in this article. If you’ve been in Michigan recently (it’s my family home), you will be inundated with anti-El Sayed attack ads. The people paying for them are not our friends.
Wow. It seems the Democrats' radical, insane base has been liberated and inspired by the Platners and Mamdanis of the world, and is eating their more rational and moderate establishment alive. Huh. Where have we seen that before? All they are lacking is their own Donald Trump to focus their irrational "Kill the Rich!" rage, and they'll be ready to "Make America Great Again", only according to their own socialist vision.
Wouldn't it be just sweet justice if Dems won the races they need to win the Senate in Maine, NC, Ohio and Alaska, and then lost the Senate anyway, because an anti-Israel clown in Michigan took down a fat cartoon establishment loser with a weird voice - and then lost to a Republican who makes losing a habit in the general election. I'm certainly here for it.
El Sayed could not bring himself to condemn a guy who drove a car into a temple. That is not the mark of any form of "progressivism" I've ever heard of.
https://jewishinsider.com/2026/04/abdul-el-sayed-on-temple-israel-terrorist-hurt-people-do-hurt-people/
The Democratic party has been barking up the wrong Big Tent and if only they would stop all the biting they could get it right by 2028. If everyone who is a social democrat inside DSA just makes a real effort to help the Democratic party, by putting both feet inside the party instead of 9-1/2 toes stuck in their “movement" against other Democrats, maybe 2/3rds of Americans (including myself as a former moderate Republican turned Independent) would take a closer look at the Democratic party.
Arguments about Democrats being commie libtard socialists over social democracy don't have to be answered with “Well, if that’s socialism, I guess I’m OK with socialism.” https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/there-are-very-few-socialists-in.
Such jabs can be strongly and definitively met with broadly acceptable and credible platforms, messaging, messengers, policy formation and real progress that won't ever be accomplished as long as MAGA and DSA keep running a 50/50 nation split scheme.
They are forgetting that this election is all and only about defeating MAGA and Trumpism.
They're not forgetting it. They don't consider it significant. The far left sees MAGA and centrist Democrats as essentially equivalent. They don't see themselves as fighting to save the US from MAGA, they see themselves as fighting to save it from its entire political establishment.
The Democratic Party is just as broken and useless as the Republican Party. A hard rain's a-gonna fall.
woulda been nice to have a genuine conversation about this because I have nothing personal against your viewpoint but now understand you have been more interested in demeaning mine.
Please explain?
Just something left over from an interchange I had earlier today. If he had approached it differently, we could have had a better conversation. This topic deserves much more deliberation and consensus.
This is a fight that needs to happen, so let them fight.
That's what they get for pushing Mallory McMorrow out of the race. She was clearly the best candidate.
Yea, I didn't really understand that either. I just figured since it wasn't my state, there were probably things I just didn't know about.
Agreed. Neither of these candidates have shown me they can reunite the party in MI.
Why not get rid of the primary in favor of a pairwise rated contest? All voters would rate El-Sayed. All voters would rate Stevens. And all voters would rate Rogers. Each voter's ratings would indicate whether that voter prefers El-Sayed or Rogers, Stevens or Rogers, and Stevens or El-Sayed. Those preferences would be aggregated with the candidate preferred over both others winning the election.
With such a system, how a voter rates Stevens has no effect on the El-Sayed-Rogers race. How a voter rates El-Sayed has no effect on the Stevens-Rogers race. And, Republican voters' preferences between El-Sayed and Stevens count equally with Democratic voters, with no effect on Rogers's chances.
The closed primary system has GOT to go. It’s exacerbating the polarization of our political system, and causing the fragmentation of what I would hope would be the ‘anti-authoritarian, pro-reality’ segment of the country.
I am wondering at what point does the middle of each party break apart and form a centrist, technocratic party. Let the ends of the horseshoe fight it out while the rest of us get work done. To answer the question in the article of ‘why does no one ever ask the centrist candidate to back down’- it’s because in a purple state, you would assume that the extremist candidate would be less able to pull voters from the other side in a general election, which is what you need to do to win. If ‘operatives’ are asking this question, they should think about changing careers.
If only the left flank of the GOP would join the right flank of the Dems to form a coalition that would tell Republicans, no stupid fascist racism and nationalism, and also tell the Democrats, no stupid socialist tax increases, redistribution or attacks on Israel. You both need our votes to pass anything, and unless you play ball, we're shutting the whole thing down.
We tried that! Kamela would be president if that coalition had 51%. It does not!
With respect and out of curiosity, who do you consider GOP moderate/technocratic?
The GOP has been completely corrupted by Trump- anyone offended by (or just unable to weather) the separation from reality has left or is getting pushed out, from Jeff Flake to Cornyn. The rest have sold their soul to stay in, à la Susan Collins. But for voters who don’t pay attention, they seem like centrists, and a sensible choice. I think if there were another party where they could live not under the bullying influence of Trump, they’d go there instead. And a similar thing might happen to the dems, leaving the DSA to run in navy blue areas like NYC, New England, etc. But the longer the GOP persists as an outlet for the angry, aggrieved, racist dregs, supplemented by people who will just reflexively vote (R) because… trans people, while the two sides of the Dems split the remainder, the more there will be nothing to save on the right. We’re already in a place where we have a two party system where one party is interested in a rules-based democracy and the other isn’t. Biden was elected in 2020, in part because third party candidates stayed out (people don’t mention this much when they talk about 2024). In 2024- Jill Stein ran again (despite being ostricised by the Green Party in Germany because they didn’t want her to threaten the anti-Trump coalition), and she got almost a million votes. There were 26 candidates on the ballot around the country, most of whom weren’t on the ballot in enough states to functionally win the vote. Why is that allowed? I’m just saying- there are real structural weaknesses in our electoral system that exacerbate the factions in our party system. And neither party seems interested in fixing that- the Republicans because they benefit from it, and the Democrats because they can’t get their act together.
Also- to Scott Smith’s point- Rank choice voting also needs to be instituted everywhere. First-choice only voting only benefits the extremists. For crying out loud- Kennedy got 750k votes in the presidential election. Now he’s busy killing the NIH, the CDC, and bringing back measles. And peptides. Heaven help us all.
All of them... just ask them.
"I am wondering at what point does the middle of each party break apart and form a centrist, technocratic party."
With any first-choice-or-bust voting system, that can only work in one-party districts. While voters may dislike both parties, that doesn't mean that they don't have a higher priority for keeping one party out of office than the other. Only in a one-party district, where either there is no chance of the more odious party getting elected or there is no chance of keeping the more odious party out of office would that obstacle to a minor party change.