Regardless of their political stances on Israel, shouldn’t we be encouraging more Primary challenges in general? After all, AOC got her seat in the first place because of a well-timed Primary challenge to an entrenched incumbent.
Politicians shouldn’t expect their seat to be theirs indefinitely. If these Representatives think their views represent their constituents well enough, they should have nothing to worry about.
In general, sure, but a) our campaign finance laws being an utter joke and the prevalence of dark money organizations that spread disinformation doesn’t make for a very fair fight, b) I really have to question the priorities of some of these challengers, i.e.,
St. Louis County prosecutor Wesley Bell, a Democrat, dropped his bid against a Republican senator [Josh Hawley] to challenge a House Democrat. ‘I think we have to stand with our allies,’ he said.
I’d be willing to wager that any squad member is way more in touch with the voter base in their district than the Democratic Party in general or even other politicians in the district.
In AOC’s case in particular, she was boosted by a law we passed that matched personal donations with a certain amount of public funds as well. It was intended to allow people like her (i.e. the not-already-disgustingly-wealthy) a more viable route to government. So there are some places that are keeping an eye on campaign finance, albeit at a glacial pace.
In theory yes but in practice, because seats are so gerrymandered, primaries in safe seats move the selection process to within a party, so you end up with who can win a majority of one party rather than who fits the district the best. Moves everyone in safe seats further to the fringes.
This is a problem with gerrymandering, not with primaries. Nobody should feel like their seat is owed to them, no matter how “safely” the district is drawn.
Regardless of their political stances on Israel, shouldn’t we be encouraging more Primary challenges in general? After all, AOC got her seat in the first place because of a well-timed Primary challenge to an entrenched incumbent.
Politicians shouldn’t expect their seat to be theirs indefinitely. If these Representatives think their views represent their constituents well enough, they should have nothing to worry about.
In general, sure, but a) our campaign finance laws being an utter joke and the prevalence of dark money organizations that spread disinformation doesn’t make for a very fair fight, b) I really have to question the priorities of some of these challengers, i.e.,
I’d be willing to wager that any squad member is way more in touch with the voter base in their district than the Democratic Party in general or even other politicians in the district.
In AOC’s case in particular, she was boosted by a law we passed that matched personal donations with a certain amount of public funds as well. It was intended to allow people like her (i.e. the not-already-disgustingly-wealthy) a more viable route to government. So there are some places that are keeping an eye on campaign finance, albeit at a glacial pace.
His priority appears to be getting a gig in Congress, and he thinks this is a better chance than a longshot against Senator Fist Pump.
In this case, there’s also the fact that no Democrat is going to be winning a statewide race in Missouri any time remotely soon.
In theory yes but in practice, because seats are so gerrymandered, primaries in safe seats move the selection process to within a party, so you end up with who can win a majority of one party rather than who fits the district the best. Moves everyone in safe seats further to the fringes.
This is a problem with gerrymandering, not with primaries. Nobody should feel like their seat is owed to them, no matter how “safely” the district is drawn.