CNN House Key Race Alert: Four races move toward Democrats after Tuesday's primaries

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by SueEllenRules!, May 10, 2018.

  1. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,762
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +751
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    CNN House Key Race Alert: Four races move toward Democrats after Tuesday's primaries
    The first big primary night of 2018 is in the books.

    It was tough going for some Republican House members looking for a promotion. But it also might cause a little heartburn for Republicans who are hoping to return to the chamber, or join it for the first time.

    Based on Tuesday's results, CNN is moving four races to a more competitive ranking — all in favor of the Democrats. In three of those contests, Republicans remain strong favorites to hold the seat, but Democrats landed candidates they feel are good fits for the districts. That also is true in the fourth race on the list, which moves to the Toss-Up column. Of the 22 races now rated as Toss-Ups, 20 are currently held by Republicans.

    As a reminder, Democrats need a net gain of 23 seats in order to win control of the House.

    NC-09: GOP Rep. Robert Pittenger became the first incumbent to lose a renomination contest this cycle, creating an open seat opportunity for Democrats where the party had already landed a strong challenger. Democrat Dan McCready, a Marine Corps veteran and clean energy entrepreneur, received nearly 38,000 votes Tuesday — roughly 4,000 more than Pittenger and GOP primary winner Mark Harris combined. McCready heads into the general election with $1.2 million in the bank compared to about $70,000 for Harris, a former pastor. This district went for Donald Trump by 12 points in 2016, but Democrats hold a clear edge in enthusiasm at this stage of the race. Race moves from Lean Republican to Toss-Up.

    WV-03: State Sen. Richard Ojeda scored a convincing victory in the Democratic primary Tuesday night, receiving 52% of the vote against three challengers. Ojeda received nearly 30,000 votes in the primary, which came close to matching the total combined votes for the top four vote-getters in the GOP primary. State Del. Carol Miller won that seven-person contest with 24% of the vote. Democrats will face an uphill climb is this southern West Virginia seat. Donald Trump carried the 3rd District by 50 points in 2016 while Mitt Romney carried it by 32 points. But Ojeda's populist platform combined with his background as a decorated Army veteran who voted for Trump could appeal in a district that was represented by former Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall until he lost his 2014 re-election bid. Race moves from Solid Republican to Likely Republican.

    IN-02: Three-term GOP Rep. Jackie Walorski will face off against Democrat Mel Hall in November. Hall, a former minister, received 42% of the vote in Tuesday's crowded six-candidate Democratic primary. Walorski won her last two races with comfortable margins after earning a narrow victory in 2012 to the seat vacated by current Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly. Donald Trump won this district, home to South Bend and Elkhart, by 22 points. That was a dramatic swing from 2008, when Barack Obama and John McCain were separated by about 700 votes. Walorski enters the general election as a clear favorite, with a little more than $1 million in the bank as of mid-April. Hall starts off with $236,000 cash on hand, but he's shown an ability to stay competitive in fundraising the last two quarters. Race moves from Solid Republican to Likely Republican.

    IN-09: This is another Hoosier State race with a heavily-favored GOP incumbent and a Democratic nominee who could pose a challenge. Democrat Liz Watson, a former congressional staffer, eclipsed two other candidates with 66% of the vote in Tuesday's primary. She'll face off against first-term Rep. Trey Hollingsworth in November. Watson has outraised Hollingsworth the past two fundraising quarters, although the Republican holds a cash-on-hand advantage of $432,000 to $297,000. Hollingsworth, whose net worth is in excess of $50 million, has the ability to help his own cause if necessary. In 2016, he spent $3.1 million of his own money on his campaign. The district includes some Indianapolis and Louisville suburbs, as well as Bloomington, home to Indiana University. Hillary Clinton won Monroe County, where the school is based, by 23 points in 2016. Race moves from Solid Republican to Likely Republican.

    CNN House Key Race Alert: Four races move toward Democrats after Tuesday's primaries - CNN Politics https://apple.news/AXTX7GQ6VRzOiSWpjzH70Bg
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2018
  2. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,762
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +751
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    Democrats hold big cash advantage over GOP rivals after Tuesday's red state primaries
    • Tuesday's primaries in four predominantly Republican states left Democrats with a big cash advantage and a handful of new openings.
    • Yet despite the financial advantages, the political headwinds are largely against Democrats in states that voted for President Donald Trump in 2016.
    • In West Virginia, Republican Senate candidate Patrick Morrisey enters the general election campaign with $800,000 in cash on hand, compared with Democratic incumbent Sen. Manchin's $5.3 million war chest.
    Tuesday's primaries in four predominantly Republican states left Democrats with a big cash advantage and a handful of new openings as they work to defend vulnerable Senate seats and try to flip House districts this fall.

    Particularly in Senate races in Ohio, West Virginia and Indiana, where Democrats are playing defense, incumbents maintained a healthy edge in cash on hand. Yet despite the financial advantages, the political headwinds are largely against Democrats since all three states voted for President Donald Trump by sizable margins in 2016.

    West Virginia coal baron and convicted criminal Don Blankenship spent nearly $3 million – almost entirely from his own pocket – only to lose the state's GOP primary to West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who raised about half as much.

    Morrisey now enters the general election campaign with just $800,000 in cash on hand, based on the latest figures available from the Center for Responsive Politics, compared with Manchin's $5.3 million war chest.

    Still, Democrats face an uphill battle in the state, which voted Republican by wide margins in both the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections. Yet Tuesday's turnout bodes well for Manchin. Overall, he and his Democratic primary rival, Paula Swearengin, outpolled Morrisey and five other GOP contenders.

    In Ohio, incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown had more than $12 million in campaign cash entering the primary. He now faces GOP primary winner Jim Renacci, currently a House member from Ohio's 16th district.

    But Renacci spent less than $1 million to dispense with his two major GOP rivals, leaving him with a war chest of $4.2 million as his campaign gears up for the November ballot.

    Republicans turned out in greater numbers than Democrats in Tuesday's primary. While Democrats swept Ohio in both the Senate and presidential elections in 2012, the state went for President Donald Trump in 2016 by 8 points.

    Indiana's Democratic incumbent senator, Joe Donnelly, was sitting on more than $6.2 million heading into Tuesday's primary, more than four times as much as the winner of the GOP nomination, Mike Braun.

    But Tuesday's turnout, where Republicans outvoted Democrats by nearly two to one, doesn't bode well for Donnelly. The state also voted for Trump in 2016 by 15 points.

    Most of the districts represented in Tuesday's House primary races are considered safe for Republicans. But a handful of upsets left Democrats with a few new opportunities for upsets.

    In North Carolina's 9th District, GOP incumbent Robert Pittenger lost his primary bid to GOP rival and former pastor Mark Harris, who will face Marine Corps veteran Dan McCready in the November election. Overall, more Democrats voted than Republicans. McCready also enters the general race with a $1.3 million war chest.

    In North Carolina's 13th District, Democrat Kathy Manning will face incumbent Ted Budd, who was uncontested for the GOP nomination. Manning enters the general race with nearly twice as much cash, based on the latest data available.

    Democrats hold big cash advantage over GOP rivals after Tuesday's red state primaries - CNBC https://apple.news/AFJV8MjM4Re6d04Jbe7vBLA
     
  3. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +503
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    I'm so glad Paula Swearengin lost the Democratic primary to Joe Manchin. We need more Democrats like Manchin who have the courage to govern as Republicans.
     
  4. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,762
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +751
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    Let’s see. Joe Manchin or a candidate who doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of beating a Republican in a state like West Virginia. What a dilemma. :NI:
     
  5. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +503
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Exactly. The choice must be between a Republican and a closeted Republican who usually votes with the GOP. It's the only way Democrats can win.

    I'll never understand Democrats who have such high standards and refuse to compromise on issues such as climate change, bank regulations, approving the nomination of torturers, voting to increase the military budget, voting to defund Planned Parrenthood, and so on. I mean come on, he's a registered Democrat! Doesn't that mean anything to these progressives?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2018
  6. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,762
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +751
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    Or a conservative Democrat, depending on your point of view.

    I actually have no idea how often Manchin votes with the GOP.

    In a state like West Virginia? Yes, it is.

    More accurately, they're the standards of the voters that elected him to the Senate.

    In West Virginia! Frankly, he's lucky to be there at all.

    Which progressives?
     
  7. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +503
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Tomato, tamoto

    It's public record. He's voted in line with Trump's positions 61.4% of the time.

    And better a conservative Democrat than a conservative Republican, amirite? And it doesn't hurt that Manchin gobbles corporate cash, unlike his primary opponent.

    Thank God the Democratic leadership is putting their finger on the scales to make sure progressives lose even in liberal states. They know better than the voters.

    And thank God nobodies chastising them for voting against their self-interests, unlike all those Trump supporters did.

    Yes, blue shirts all the way. I love me some socially conservative, backwards Democrats!

    The ones who expect Democrats to govern as leftists. The sooner they realize most Democrats are pro-choice conservatives, the better off we'll all be.
     
  8. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,762
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +751
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    By that logic, John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski could all be labeled 'closeted Democrats' because they don't always toe the Republican Party line. That’s all that’s torpedoed some of the more reprehensible items on Trump’s vile agenda.

    I’ll take the 38.6% of the time he’s voting against Trump’s position. It certainly beats the 0% I’d get with a Republican.

    Does a bear poo in the woods?

    Welcome to politics.

    Like where? And specifically which progressives are you talking about?

    That may well be true. I mean, look at who the voters chose in the last Republican presidential primary. :eck:

    Or, more accurately, they enjoy winning elections rather than certain defeat from the outset by self-sabotage.

    You don’t have to love them, especially if you don’t even live in the states in question. It’s like this: You go to the company picnic and find out they’re only serving either chocolate or vanilla ice cream for dessert, but it turns out the chocolate is actually manure. Yet, you’re complaining that the vanilla isn’t French vanilla and they’re not serving it in a waffle cone with sprinkles on top. And if you can’t have exactly that, you’re willing to throw the vanilla in the dumpster and make everyone eat manure.

    You’re expecting a lot from politicians elected in West Virginia.

    Huh? :confuse:
     
  9. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +503
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    The problem with the Democratic Party line is that it's become too conservative over the years, thanks in large part to Bill Clinton. Not towing the Democratic Party line these days generally means not supporting war, illegal spying, for profit healthcare, etc. They sometimes get things right like not voting to cut taxes for the wealthy, but they won't back single payer, tuition free college, nor are they anti-war. These are policies that are supported by the majority of the Democratic base, and we're being ignored in favor of their donors.

    I get it. You're a pragmatist to the core, while I'm more of an idealist. I'm just incapable of putting a smile on my face simply because a Democrat won. I get that you see it as a victory that they're not voting with Trump 100% of the time, but Dems like Manchin have still voted yes on reprehensible policies from warrantless surveillance to repealing bank regulations.

    Manchin also voted yes on torturer Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State. He's also the first Democrat to say he'll vote yes on Gina Haspel's nomination for CIA Director. Haspel ran a torture site during the Bush Administration and illegally destroyed evidence of it. The fact that Manchin's a Democrat is a moot point with a voting record like that.

    Welcome to a corrupt game where politicians do what their donors want rather than what the voters want.

    That's why activist primary challengers are popping up and taking on these incumbents. They may lose a few battles here and there, but they've yet to lose the war.

    There was leaked audio of House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer urging a progressive candidate in Colorado to drop out. He told him that the Democratic leadership already picked a candidate that they would support. Nancy Pelosi defended Hoyer, saying "I don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in conversation about.”

    Where is their impartiality? They clearly learned nothing from their interference in the 2016 primaries.

    Was there really a good choice among that crop of GOP goons? Trump won the Republican presidential primary because he was the only one that claimed to be anti-establishment.

    That turned out to be utter BS once he got into office, but people clearly wanted to break up the system.

    I keep hearing Dems say that running progressives is sabotage, yet the progressives support policies that most Democrats support according to polls.

    If anything, the Dems are often the ones sabotaging progressives. They tried to with Laura Moser in Texas, now they're trying to do the same to Levi Tillemann in Colorado.

    A better example would be vanilla that tastes okay after the first bite or two, but the more you eat it, the more you realize the center is the same manure you rejected to begin with.

    First bite: no tax cuts for the rich. Second bite: no repealing Obamacare. Every bite after that: more war, more surveillance, repealing bank regulations, approving torturers, etc.

    Whether the voters of West Virginia end up with Manchin or a Republican, they'll still have voted against their own self interests.

    Although it is worth noting that Bernie Sanders won the state's primary in 2016. Manchin had an advantage over Swearingin in that he was the incumbent and had far more money.

    Of course in Manchin's case, he's actually a pro-life conservative.

    I'm just saying people have to accept what is. When it comes to the banks, trade, foreign policy, the police state, and healthcare, Dems have gotten in bed with the neocons.

    Anybody to the left of that spectrum has absolutely no representation, yet are expected to vote for a party that does very little for them. It's frustrating to say the least.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. SueEllenRules!

    SueEllenRules! Soap Chat Dream Maker

    Message Count:
    1,762
    Trophy Points:
    2,194
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Ratings:
    +751
    Member Since:
    April 2005
    You mean the first Democrat in 4 elections to win the presidency in 1992? The first Democrat since FDR to serve 2 full terms? The guy under whose leadership we experienced unprecedented peace and economic prosperity? The guy who left office with an approval rating of 66%, the highest in the history of the Gallup poll?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

    I think that your assessment of the Democratic Party line is somewhat distorted to say the least, but basically, you want the moon and the stars along with the sun?

    The problem is you have to appeal to voters beyond the Democratic base to win elections.
    More accurately, you're being ignored in favor of the voters who will determine whether or not they keep their seat in the particular district they represent.

    Guilty as charged. I detest losing elections to Republicans. Ideals don't butter any biscuits.

    What does a Republican winning put on your face?

    Except for, of course, the 38.6% of the time he’s voting against Trump’s positions, which certainly beats the 0% I’d get with a Republican.

    Where have they won any battles?

    They're certainly light years from winning the war, too.

    I don't see anything inappropriate in it either.

    They're required to be impartial? Are they required to enjoy losing, too?

    Oh, let's hope they've learned a thing or two.

    A Republican is never a good choice.

    I thought it was because the majority of Republicans are as bat$h!t crazy as he is.

    Gee, who could've seen that coming from a mile away?

    Apparently by driving it over the cliff.
    In more conservative districts? I'd say they're right.

    Again, the problem is you have to appeal to voters beyond the Democratic base to win elections.

    By discouraging them from running in districts they're almost certain to lose?

    If you'd just as soon eat pure manure, I suppose you may as well vote Republican.

    That's true of any red state. In this case, it's a matter of the degree to which they'll vote against their own self-interest.

    Not that he or any Democrat had a snowball's chance in hell of winning West Virginia in the general election for the presidency.

    Not to mention the prospect of actually beating the Republican challenger in November.
    It's almost like he represents a state that Trump won by a margin of 42 percentage points.

    I've been saying the same thing about the two-party system.

    Well, apparently, we somehow missed the orgies with Putin.

    They can always vote third party. As long as they don't mind that they're actually helping the Republicans in the process.

    As opposed to all the Republicans have done for them?

    More or less frustrating than a Trump presidency?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
  11. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +503
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    I'm not saying it was all bad. But with that also came exploding the prison population, repealing Glass Steagall, gutting welfare, DOMA, NAFTA, etc.

    So the Democratic Party definitely started to support more traditionally conservative policies under his watch. It was worse under Obama, who expanded some of Bush's policies.

    The fact that supporting liberal policies is being mocked by Democrats is evidence that the party has moved towards the right. I can still remember Hillary Clinton fighting for universal health care and bankruptcy protections in the 90s. Today, Democrats who want access to health care, education, a living wage, and their jobs to remain in the US are somehow being unreasonable. Apparently, it's also unreasonable to want diplomacy over eight unnecessary wars, or for the government to stop illegally spying on its citizens.

    So most voters support stagnant wages, unusually long prison sentences, having their communications spied on, and not being able to afford health care and college?
    Even though they vote on issues that affect the entire country? We can't even get a liberal presidential candidate. Obama ran as a liberal, but governed as a moderate.

    What biscuits do center-right Dems butter if people still struggle under their policies?

    A frown, obviously. But just because Democrats are the "alternative" doesn't mean they're always on the right side of the issues either.

    Do you know how low of a standard that is? Manchin didn't vote in favor of a shitty, draconian policy 38.6% of the time, so let's not criticize him.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/our-revolution-candidates-won-big-last-night/

    Primaries are still on going as well, and there have been articles that have stated progressives are pushing other candidates towards supporting a more liberal agenda.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense from your posts that you want Dems to move away from the left. You just sound like you support that beyond being a pragmatist.

    How about the fact that it's undemocratic and supersedes the will of the voters?

    If they're not required to be impartial, what the hell is the point of having primaries? Of course they want the country to believe progressives policies can't come to fruition because that's what their donors tell them to say. It wasn't progressives who've sunk the Democratic Party. Dems weren't impartial in 2016. We were promised Democratic socialism under Obama, and got a moderate Democrat instead. Hillary promised more of the same. At the end of the day, they lost the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and most governorships.

    It's all about the money. As Bernie Sanders put it, "They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats."

    It's already apparent that they haven't. They're on the record saying they can choose their nominees however they want.

    And IMO, neither is a corrupt Democrat who supports policies that go against the interests of the majority of the country

    Many are, yes. Others were looking for something other than the status quo.

    It was obvious to me too, but a con man like Trump was able to weasel his way into the White House by promising to break up the status quo.

    Hillary, on the other hand, represented the status quo that had failed people for so long.

    That's what happens when a political party takes its base for granted and keeps moving towards a neoliberal agenda.
    From the town halls I've seen, there's more progressives in those districts than people realize. It would be more fair if Dems stopped interfering and stopped taking corporate money.

    According to this article from Salon, a majority of Americans do support a progressive economic agenda:

    https://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/am...ers-economic-policies-so-howd-we-end-up-here/

    And yet it backfired in Laura Moser's case. She at least received enough votes to require a runoff election.

    What I find amusing is that Democrats have spoke out against foreign election meddling for the last two years, but are perfectly fine using money and opposition research to tank their own candidates! In fair and democratic elections, voters get to hear from candidates with a variety of ideas and ultimately choose the one who best represents them. Dems who try to shut out progressives aren't doing that because they think they can't win, they do it because progressives upset their apple cart by standing between them and their donors.

    A person can be a pragmatist and still have a problem with the Democratic Party's huge flaws. Why should I give them a pass, especially on issues where they vote with Republicans?

    Pretty much, yeah.

    Maybe, but it's an example of how the country is becoming more receptive towards progressive policies.

    Hard to say. She was certainly an example that not everybody who lives in coal country is a diehard conservative.

    Manchin's also one the most disliked members of the Senate, so he's still got an uphill battle ahead of him.
    It's almost like policy affiliation is meaningless when you mostly support policies associated with Republicans.

    The cynic in me thinks it will never change, but the optimist in me cheers anybody who tries to reform it.

    Unless you support moderate Dems or are a diehard pragmatist, it can be a challenge. You can either vote for a mainstream candidate who doesn't share your values, or you can "waste" your vote on a candidate who does. And in the process, you could potentially help a candidate who is even worse than the other candidate you're opposed to.

    And regardless of your choice, you know in your heart that the rich will thrive and the Middle East will be on fire. All brought to you by the American two party system.

    Yes, Trump and the Republicans are bad. But that doesn't mean Dem-backed positions such as TPP, stagnant wages, for profit health care, war, and illegal surveillance are good either. The fact is both parties are more alike than unalike. If Dems went back to their liberal roots on social and economic issues, I believe they would reach more people.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2018
  12. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +503
    Member Since:
    June 2001
  13. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Addict

    Message Count:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +503
    Member Since:
    June 2001
    Socialists and Progressives Just Trounced the Democratic Establishment
    On Tuesday, insurgent challengers beat out their opponents in races across the country by running on bold left platforms.

    If members of the Democratic Party establishment weren’t already worried, after Tuesday night, they should be. In primaries across the country, at least eight candidates running on explicitly progressive platforms won out, including open socialists and political newcomers who took out longtime incumbents.

    These victories are proof that the recent successes of left challengers are no fluke. Rather, the wins show that voters who are tired of the type of milquetoast, means-tested policies pushed by centrist Democrats are willing to embrace candidates running on bold, redistributive policies. And far from being too far left to win, these candidates have the political winds at their backs.

    In the Pittsburgh area, two members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato, won hotly contested races for the Pennsylvania statehouse. Lee and Innamorato, running in Districts 34 and 21, both won out against incumbent Democrats—Reps. Paul Costa and Dom Costa. (Full disclosure: The author is a DSA member but did not work on any of these campaigns.)

    The Costas are cousins and members of a powerful political family in the region, and have been representing their districts for many election cycles. Their defeat reveals profound changes in the political landscape over recent years, as well as the growing power of the movement to elect challengers like Lee and Innamorato.

    That movement was powered in large part of by the DSA, which endorsed both Lee and Innamorato—each first-time candidates—and helped organize large-scale volunteer efforts to support their campaigns.

    Lee, running against Paul Costa, centered her campaign around policies that would protect low-income residents in her district, many of them people of color. In addition to supporting universal healthcare, free public education, and a $15 minimum wage, Lee also put her weight behind revitalizing blighted neighborhoods, stemming the tide of mass incarceration and protecting long-term residents from being pushed out by the forces of gentrification—forces she claims Costa helped to propel.

    At her victory party on Tuesday night, Lee eagerly summed up the spirit of political transformation that fueled her campaign: “If your politicians are not serving you, get rid of them.” As she faces no Republican opponent in the fall, Lee is poised to become the first African-American woman to represent Western Pennsylvania at the state level.

    Innamorato was similarly buoyant following her win, telling supporters: “We accomplished the impossible.” Her opponent Dom Costa was widely considered one of the most conservative Democrats in the state legislature, and even asked Republican voters in the district to write in his name on their ballots.

    Where Costa had previously backed restrictive bills around immigration and reproductive rights, Innamorato voiced support for a swath of progressive policies around these and other issues critical to Pittsburgh area voters. She also faces no GOP opponent, and is assured victory in November. Both Lee and Innamorato trounced their opponents, winning with over 60 percent of the vote.

    In a statement, Pittsburgh DSA co-chair Adam Shuck writes that “These wins indicate that a renewed, vibrant left in America is not an aberration, but instead that working people are ready for real change, progressive policies and a society that works for all of us, not a select few.”

    In the Philadelphia region, Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale won their primaries for the statehouse in Districts 184 and 168. Fiedler and Seale were also both endorsed by the DSA, and their victories marked a sweep for the socialist organization in Pennsylvania, where all four of their endorsed candidates—all women—won out over male opponents.

    Since Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run, the DSA has stepped up its electoral operations and has recently scored a number of high-profile victories, including Lee Carter’s election to the Virginia House of Delegates and Seema Singh-Perez’s election to the Knoxville City Council. Last year alone, 21 candidates endorsed by the DSA, many of them members themselves, won elections across the country. Tuesday’s Pennsylvania sweep adds to this wave.

    Also in the Pittsburgh area, Braddock mayor and outspoken progressive John Fetterman—who had been endorsed by Sanders—won an upset victory over incumbent Mike Stack in his race for Lieutenant Governor, meaning he will run alongside Gov. Tom Wolf in November.

    In Lancaster County, progressive candidate Jess King—also endorsed by Sanders—easily won her primary after her opponent Christina Hartman dropped out of the race to run in a different district (which she then failed to qualify for). King will face incumbent Republican Rep. Lloyd Smucker in November.

    And Tuesday’s progressive victories are not confined to Pennsylvania. In Nebraska, Kara Eastman won a shocking victory over former Rep. Brad Ashford in the Democratic House primary.

    Eastman set herself apart from Ashford, a moderate “Blue Dog” Democrat who had the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), by running on a broad left agenda including Medicare for all—a policy that is becoming increasingly mainstream in Democratic Party politics but which many moderates remain unwilling to support. Ashford had been widely expected to prevail, and his loss comes as a blow to centrist forces in the Democratic Party who had hoped to run the one-time Republican in the fall.

    Eastman had the backing from a number of national progressive groups including the Justice Democrats and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC).

    Following the victory, PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor said in a statement: “Kara Eastman taught the Democratic establishment a lesson: The way to inspire voters in 2018 is to campaign on a bold progressive agenda of Medicare for All, higher wages for workers, and other economic populist ideas that help working families and challenge corporate power.”

    In Idaho, Native American state legislator Paulette Jordan won the Democratic nomination in the state’s gubernatorial race, beating out businessman A.J. Balukoff, who had been the party’s nominee in 2014. Jordan ran on such progressive policies as enacting universal healthcare, fighting climate change and raising the minimum wage. She will face Republican Lt. Gov. Brad Little in November, and if she wins she will become the first Native American governor in U.S. history.

    Far from being isolated events, these victories are emblematic of a vast left electoral insurgency that has been sweeping the country since the 2016 presidential election. While Democratic Party insiders have mounted campaigns to keep out progressive challengers—most visibly in the rejection of Rep. Keith Ellison as DNC chair—voters continue to elevate candidates running on resolute left platforms.

    Rather than shying away from the types of policies that would upend the status quo and challenge the corporate interests that dominate both major parties, these candidates are embracing them. And they are willing to take on entrenched powers within the Democratic Party in the process.

    At a time when voters are seeking an alternative to President Trump and his GOP cabal, as well as the types of policies that have led to wage stagnation, rising healthcare costs, mass incarceration and climate devastation, Tuesday’s victories point a way forward.

    As DSA’s National Electoral Committee co-chair Tascha Van Auken says of the election results: “A political revolution is coming, and establishment politicians can get on board or be swept away.”

    Source: https://www.commondreams.org/views/...ssives-just-trounced-democratic-establishment

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2018

Share This Page