Primary Results Favor The #Resistance

Filed in National by on May 16, 2018

Get ready for professional Democrats like Chris Coons and scores of TV talking heads to tut, tut these results and go on a concern-troll marathon. I say – fuck those guys. If you are so smart and “the middle” is such an electoral goldmine – why have you LOST WITH THAT STRATEGY SO FUCKING MUCH OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS?

The Democratic Party woke up this morning with a clear signal from Tuesday’s primary elections: The #Resistance means business. The more progressive candidate won in Democratic primaries around the country. The question, however, is whether those more liberal candidates will hurt the party’s chances in November.

The biggest — and most surprising — news of the night was nonprofit executive Kara Eastman’s nomination in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. Although former U.S. Rep. Brad Ashford had both the money and the backing of national Democrats, Eastman defeated him 51 percent to 49 percent. Like many of yesterday’s victorious Democrats, Eastman won by throwing red (blue?) meat to the liberal base: Where Ashford touted his ability to build consensus in Congress, Eastman promised confrontation and, well, resistance to President Trump.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Alby says:

    From the same 538 story:

    In [Pennsylvania’s] 1st District, philanthropist Scott Wallace, the grandson of the Progressive Party’s 1948 presidential nominee, defeated former Navy prosecutor Rachel Reddick 56 percent to 35 percent. Reddick had made her conversion from the GOP a centerpiece of her campaign.

  2. So, will the Third Way types who control the purse strings for the Democratic establishment provide financial assistance to all these candidates who they fret can’t win? Or will they starve them?

    Oh, might I point out that it’s these self-same party establishment types who (falsely) claimed that Bernie Sanders wasn’t doing enough to drag Hillary across the finish line?

    Shoe is on the other foot now.

  3. jason330 says:

    Not holding my breath. Whether or not they throw a few crumbs – I have no doubt that the party establishment nay sayers and concern trolls will be rooting for GOP wins in these close races.

  4. Alby says:

    Here’s the take from TPM, complete with fretful hand-wringing from establishment Dems:

    [F]ormer Rep. Brad Ashford (D-NE), a moderate who had support of national Democrats including the Democratic Congressional Committee, lost to nonprofit healthcare executive Kara Eastman (D) in a stunner. Eastman ran hard on universal Medicare and supports decriminalizing marijuana. Ashford, a former Republican, basically ran his primary with a general-election message, touting the work he’d done to bring a VA clinic back to the district in ads.

    I highlight that passage because I see it in the biographies of so many establishment “Democrats” — including Chris Coons.

  5. Alby says:

    I also pound on this unhealthy obsession with military veterans for a simple, obvious reason: John Kerry, the only one of the past six Democratic candidates to lose the presidential popular vote.

    Democrats who think you can win by countering GOP attacks ahead of time fail to appreciate the lesson evangelicals and fundies are demonstrating now: The principles they claim to hold are complete bullshit. They will drop those requirements in a microsecond if doing so will help pwn the libs.

  6. jason330 says:

    From that TPM article, the normally well-edited site publishled this:

    ““Things almost certainly got tougher in a couple districts,” the national Democrat told TPM, calling Reddick the “stronger candidate” and saying there was “no doubt” Ashford would have been the better fit for his Omaha district.”

    What national Democrat? Why keep that fucking insider’s name out of it? What a joke.

  7. bamboozer says:

    As noted Third Way types and assorted DINOS are terrified of an activist left, especially since they fear they can not only win but also shift the party to the left and even mention the “S Word” of Socialism.

  8. Paul says:

    The true “shithole” is the country that does NOT regulate its capitalism. Capitalism MAY generate wealth but also a host of social obscenities that make it seem like a ride in a careening coal car for the vast majority.

  9. RE Vanella says:

    Paul gets it.

  10. spktruth says:

    Paul does get it. We are already a socialist nation when it comes to social programs for our citizens. Social Security Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Care, Tricare, parks, highways, ports, libraries, police/fire, legislators are socialist, we the people pay for them for the common good. Capitalism was our economic programs, but the oligharcy has changed that…we are now in vulture capitalism turned fascist.

  11. Paul says:

    We are a capitalist nation struggling over some fundamental questions of political philosophy. One strand, the, how shall I say it, the Ayne libertarian strand is the foundation of what the oligarchs argue for, theoretically. The rub is that they know damn well that, “every man for himself” liberty results in very unequal outcomes, which they hide from by spouting the “liberty” horseshit. The other strand is “regulated capitalism”, with government units supplying administration to “public good” programs. These were largely instituted in the 30s to the early 70s. They have also ALWAYS been under attach from the oligarchs, who have been winning a lot lately. These two strands exist in dynamic tension relative to one another, and neither is bonefide socialism, in which the government owns the means of production. Please don’t toss words about in a cavalier fashion as words have consequences.