To STOP the lurch left or right preferential voting is essential- Do it NOW- don’t waste your vote, make it count so that if your first preference vote fails your second preference vote will not… ranked choice voting enhances democracy
We are operating under a fallacy that we should play by a set of rules. I’m not saying Hamawy isn’t a problem on his own, I’m simply saying the rules have completely changed. If democrats want to actually win back the House/Senate, the Presidency, change the makeup of the Supreme Court and stop the slide to authoritarianism, we have to think differently. Republicans run on a single issue, they are laser focused on one enemy, Democrats, they blame Schumer, Pelosi, Biden and Obama. They have done exceptionally well staying on message and executing that strategy, they control all branches of the government. Democrats on the other hand tend to create narratives that sow divisions amongst themselves, that lack in focus and it has shown and proven to be utterly flawed and unwinnable.
That is the moment I decided Pete Buttegieg was a true (and strategic) leader - when he saw that Biden could win, after he himself came in fourth in South Carolina, he was the first to step out of the presidential race and throw his support to the one candidate he (and Trump) believed could actually beat Trump. This, despite the fact that he won the Iowa causes and came in second in New Hampshire, and it was in his own interest to stay in the race longer in order to build up his national reputation. It was only after Pete took himself out of the running that others followed him and the party was able to coalesce around two and ultimately unite behind a single candidate. You may love what Biden accomplished as president or not, but there is no question he was better than Trump. Ask the Ukrainians. Ask everyone who actually received a Covid vaccine in a timely manner.
If you are truly pro democracy at this hour, you will agree on the importance of thinking and acting in a strategic and pragmatic manner. This is not actually rocket science and I don't understand how the Democratic party leadership is so feckless and shortsighted.
The moral of this piece appears to be "only support candidates who may appeal to the part of the electorate which might otherwise vote for a candidate who opposes everything you stand for". Cheups!
Good examples! All three are despicable slime - ànd still they are way BETTER than the truly monstrous Trumpkin fascist slime that was their election alternatives. Do you really believe that West Virginia can elect a Bernie Sanders ? I say, electing any Democrat there is a victory - assuming they can be elected.
This is not a circle of my personal disciples loyal to me , whom I can chose single handedly as I wish.
This is like supporting the British Empire, warts and all, not to mention the USSR, to defeat Hitler.
Besides, where does it say that a moderate candidate able to win in a purple state is doomed to be à Fetterman/ Judas? Ossoff ànd Hassan , for example can’t be accused of that.
However, neither Ossoff nor Hassan have gone out of their way to show themselves chummy with WNP Leadership, switched their affiliation from Dem to Independent, enthusiasticlly cast a vote to tank Dem Legislation, condemned the direction of the Democratic Party nor threatented to run nationally as an Independent.
The test that candidates must be put to is their integrity not simply their affiliation.
As I was watching the primary results last night I was struck with the thousands upon thousands of voters who were voting for Nazi Republicans who as leader of the CNPP(Christian Nationalist Pedo Party) brazenly corrupts, lies incessantly, shows by his actions he cares little for the American people he serves, and is a threat to the country’s national security.
So not only candidates are aligned with this kind of behavior but have either morally accepted the facts that this is what they stand for as a person or they use a useful tool called denial to rid themselves of guilt of what they represent.
Let’s get this straight. There are candidates and voters who morally align themselves with a political party that stands for outright corruption at the federal/state level, is remarkably racist and bigoted, and is ok with having their taxpayer dollars fleeced to support an illegal war and pay for a ballroom that nobody wants. Perhaps wealthy Republicans don’t care about corruption as long as they can buy expensive homes and take care of their own selfish needs. Screw the country!
How can this be, that a part of our democratic society is so morally depraved? How can it be that part of our democratic society blesses its demise into a feckless dictatorship and willing to throw away their freedoms that for 250y people have died for? There needs to be some serious reflection and introspection for who WE the People are and what WE stand for.
Hamawy winning is yet another sign of growing antisemitism, or of a lack of moral clarity, or of being clueless when defending common sense protections for tiny minorities as if they matter as much as the state of our democracy. Maybe all three.
I get about 20 fundraising texts from all sides, in drive of religiously blocking and reporting those numbers as spam. In tone, Republican beggars use menace or mitaristic pride. Democrats are all shrill, making me wonder what happened to effective Democrstic Party leadership messaging.
Every little interest group under the Democratic banner claims to be the standard bearer. None seem to want to cooperate with the others to soften their rhetoric so all fit under a pro-democracy, pro-worker, pro-civil-rights umbrella. The comments in this thread are evidence of this.
What Kasparov is saying is that, at the cost of losing a promise of fast progress on a host of varying mi ority issues, y'all should agree that zero chance of progress under Republicans due to their fascist, oligarchic, American Taliban - style morality is far worse. Swallow your fucking pride and get along to defeat your real enemy. That will take so long, at least a generation to recover what we lost under Trump, that you might find ways to actuslly like each other. Grow the fuck up.
What he promised is a different issue than who he associates with. Recall another politician called Trump, for instance. That guy promised the world and spoke in language that people trusted. He's delivered very little.
To compare Hamawy and almost any other national politician with Trump is patently faulty reasoning.
A more apt comparison is with Zohran Mamdani at whom all sorts of scurillous charges were leveled, and in his first few months in office, has manifested none of the behaviour projected.
Thank you for bringing up Mamdani, who removed executive orders that prevented NYC from creating policies that boycott and divest from Israel on day 1. I'm not judging Mamdani as being good or bad based on that decision alone, but I am pointing out that one's background and one's company affect one's point of view and future decisions.
Hamawy has associated with virulent antisemites and terrorists. Those who voted for him either didn't know that or didn't care or even approved.
Him winning the primary is a problem for Democratic voters who would like to see a rational populist government instead of a grievance-driven government. They are voting against their own rational interests just like MAGA voters vote against their own interests.
One product of Republican gerrymanders is that the primary system elevates extremists to the top. That is obvious with the GOP representatives, but it also leads to a more permanent system in which Dem reps in red states consist of permanent foils for the GOP, and are not truly representative of anything other than the tiny sliver of the most left-wing Dem voters. This is one of the putrid results of gerrymanders. The Dems could have passed gerrymander reform as a standalone bill, separate from the Biden-era voting reform package, back around 2022. That Biden/Dem failure to do so was catastrophic to American democracy.
False. It makes it worse. You introduce revenge voting where the 2 most popular candidates will also get ranked the lowest by voters more often than any other candidate, including the least popular ones. It's simple, voters are motivated to put their favorite candidate #1 and they are motivated to put the candidate they are most worried about losing to as their last choice, you should rank the other favorite that you really don't want to win last.
You are assuming that everybody would vote and rank candidates in good faith, and that never, ever happens.
In practice, ranked choice voting all but guarantees that mediocre candidates will pass multiple rounds of voting despite never having any real, significant support. Candidates that couldn't dream of advancing in other systems will advance in a ranked choice system. Here's a great video on it.
there are two parts to this. one is when dems say supporting jokers like hamawy is good as a practical matter because they are more likely to win in a tight race against the R. that wasn't the case here because it is a safe D district. but it also makes no sense in a contested general because decades of research shows the more moderate coded candidate (as defined by the electorate) is more likely to win.
but the second part is even worse. even if you think the more radical candidate has a better shot due to energy/enthusiasm, dems have spent the last 10 years dissecting every "OK" hand gesture by repubs and rejecting repub claims like that the charlottesville or jan 6 rioters were just regular guys. and yet now they make the same excuses for extremists on their own side. so pete hegseth's white power tattoos were bad, but graham platner's nazi tattoo is just fine, apparently. it's immoral and repugnant.
To STOP the lurch left or right preferential voting is essential- Do it NOW- don’t waste your vote, make it count so that if your first preference vote fails your second preference vote will not… ranked choice voting enhances democracy
I was hoping someone would mention ranked choice voting!
We are operating under a fallacy that we should play by a set of rules. I’m not saying Hamawy isn’t a problem on his own, I’m simply saying the rules have completely changed. If democrats want to actually win back the House/Senate, the Presidency, change the makeup of the Supreme Court and stop the slide to authoritarianism, we have to think differently. Republicans run on a single issue, they are laser focused on one enemy, Democrats, they blame Schumer, Pelosi, Biden and Obama. They have done exceptionally well staying on message and executing that strategy, they control all branches of the government. Democrats on the other hand tend to create narratives that sow divisions amongst themselves, that lack in focus and it has shown and proven to be utterly flawed and unwinnable.
Agreed!
Excellent analysis and important strategic point.
That is the moment I decided Pete Buttegieg was a true (and strategic) leader - when he saw that Biden could win, after he himself came in fourth in South Carolina, he was the first to step out of the presidential race and throw his support to the one candidate he (and Trump) believed could actually beat Trump. This, despite the fact that he won the Iowa causes and came in second in New Hampshire, and it was in his own interest to stay in the race longer in order to build up his national reputation. It was only after Pete took himself out of the running that others followed him and the party was able to coalesce around two and ultimately unite behind a single candidate. You may love what Biden accomplished as president or not, but there is no question he was better than Trump. Ask the Ukrainians. Ask everyone who actually received a Covid vaccine in a timely manner.
If you are truly pro democracy at this hour, you will agree on the importance of thinking and acting in a strategic and pragmatic manner. This is not actually rocket science and I don't understand how the Democratic party leadership is so feckless and shortsighted.
The moral of this piece appears to be "only support candidates who may appeal to the part of the electorate which might otherwise vote for a candidate who opposes everything you stand for". Cheups!
Actually it is “only support candidates who could win in a general election, not the ones who can win your heart. Unless you want more fascists “.
Pretty obvious for a rational person.
You mean like Joe Manchin, Krysten Synema, John Fetterman and…and…?
Good examples! All three are despicable slime - ànd still they are way BETTER than the truly monstrous Trumpkin fascist slime that was their election alternatives. Do you really believe that West Virginia can elect a Bernie Sanders ? I say, electing any Democrat there is a victory - assuming they can be elected.
Is it your rationale that it more advantageous to have a Judas in your inner circle as opposed to a smaller group of loyal disciples?
This is not a circle of my personal disciples loyal to me , whom I can chose single handedly as I wish.
This is like supporting the British Empire, warts and all, not to mention the USSR, to defeat Hitler.
Besides, where does it say that a moderate candidate able to win in a purple state is doomed to be à Fetterman/ Judas? Ossoff ànd Hassan , for example can’t be accused of that.
I share your perspective on WW 11 Allies!
However, neither Ossoff nor Hassan have gone out of their way to show themselves chummy with WNP Leadership, switched their affiliation from Dem to Independent, enthusiasticlly cast a vote to tank Dem Legislation, condemned the direction of the Democratic Party nor threatented to run nationally as an Independent.
The test that candidates must be put to is their integrity not simply their affiliation.
The Primaries And Nazi Republicans
As I was watching the primary results last night I was struck with the thousands upon thousands of voters who were voting for Nazi Republicans who as leader of the CNPP(Christian Nationalist Pedo Party) brazenly corrupts, lies incessantly, shows by his actions he cares little for the American people he serves, and is a threat to the country’s national security.
So not only candidates are aligned with this kind of behavior but have either morally accepted the facts that this is what they stand for as a person or they use a useful tool called denial to rid themselves of guilt of what they represent.
Let’s get this straight. There are candidates and voters who morally align themselves with a political party that stands for outright corruption at the federal/state level, is remarkably racist and bigoted, and is ok with having their taxpayer dollars fleeced to support an illegal war and pay for a ballroom that nobody wants. Perhaps wealthy Republicans don’t care about corruption as long as they can buy expensive homes and take care of their own selfish needs. Screw the country!
How can this be, that a part of our democratic society is so morally depraved? How can it be that part of our democratic society blesses its demise into a feckless dictatorship and willing to throw away their freedoms that for 250y people have died for? There needs to be some serious reflection and introspection for who WE the People are and what WE stand for.
On point. Thanks!!
Hamawy winning is yet another sign of growing antisemitism, or of a lack of moral clarity, or of being clueless when defending common sense protections for tiny minorities as if they matter as much as the state of our democracy. Maybe all three.
I get about 20 fundraising texts from all sides, in drive of religiously blocking and reporting those numbers as spam. In tone, Republican beggars use menace or mitaristic pride. Democrats are all shrill, making me wonder what happened to effective Democrstic Party leadership messaging.
Every little interest group under the Democratic banner claims to be the standard bearer. None seem to want to cooperate with the others to soften their rhetoric so all fit under a pro-democracy, pro-worker, pro-civil-rights umbrella. The comments in this thread are evidence of this.
What Kasparov is saying is that, at the cost of losing a promise of fast progress on a host of varying mi ority issues, y'all should agree that zero chance of progress under Republicans due to their fascist, oligarchic, American Taliban - style morality is far worse. Swallow your fucking pride and get along to defeat your real enemy. That will take so long, at least a generation to recover what we lost under Trump, that you might find ways to actuslly like each other. Grow the fuck up.
Care to share which of the things Dr Hamawy promised to prioritize if elected may be considered "antisemitic"?
What he promised is a different issue than who he associates with. Recall another politician called Trump, for instance. That guy promised the world and spoke in language that people trusted. He's delivered very little.
To compare Hamawy and almost any other national politician with Trump is patently faulty reasoning.
A more apt comparison is with Zohran Mamdani at whom all sorts of scurillous charges were leveled, and in his first few months in office, has manifested none of the behaviour projected.
Thank you for bringing up Mamdani, who removed executive orders that prevented NYC from creating policies that boycott and divest from Israel on day 1. I'm not judging Mamdani as being good or bad based on that decision alone, but I am pointing out that one's background and one's company affect one's point of view and future decisions.
Hamawy has associated with virulent antisemites and terrorists. Those who voted for him either didn't know that or didn't care or even approved.
Him winning the primary is a problem for Democratic voters who would like to see a rational populist government instead of a grievance-driven government. They are voting against their own rational interests just like MAGA voters vote against their own interests.
Right! To Muslim candidates who have won their elections decisively will not be interpreted as principled by everyone.
Some might interpret your attack on them as based on their opposition to the genocide in Gaza.
One product of Republican gerrymanders is that the primary system elevates extremists to the top. That is obvious with the GOP representatives, but it also leads to a more permanent system in which Dem reps in red states consist of permanent foils for the GOP, and are not truly representative of anything other than the tiny sliver of the most left-wing Dem voters. This is one of the putrid results of gerrymanders. The Dems could have passed gerrymander reform as a standalone bill, separate from the Biden-era voting reform package, back around 2022. That Biden/Dem failure to do so was catastrophic to American democracy.
Here we go: blame Dems by name for the majority of the electorate choosing to go to with the side promoting White Nationalist policies. Cheups!
…this is all legacy of two party system which is only one step to autocracy - FACT
Ranked choice voting fixes this.
False. It makes it worse. You introduce revenge voting where the 2 most popular candidates will also get ranked the lowest by voters more often than any other candidate, including the least popular ones. It's simple, voters are motivated to put their favorite candidate #1 and they are motivated to put the candidate they are most worried about losing to as their last choice, you should rank the other favorite that you really don't want to win last.
You are assuming that everybody would vote and rank candidates in good faith, and that never, ever happens.
In practice, ranked choice voting all but guarantees that mediocre candidates will pass multiple rounds of voting despite never having any real, significant support. Candidates that couldn't dream of advancing in other systems will advance in a ranked choice system. Here's a great video on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk&t=1s
I didn’t say RCV fixes everything. I said it fixes this.
Yes and I’m telling you it doesn’t. Not in this scenario. It magnifies the issue.
there are two parts to this. one is when dems say supporting jokers like hamawy is good as a practical matter because they are more likely to win in a tight race against the R. that wasn't the case here because it is a safe D district. but it also makes no sense in a contested general because decades of research shows the more moderate coded candidate (as defined by the electorate) is more likely to win.
but the second part is even worse. even if you think the more radical candidate has a better shot due to energy/enthusiasm, dems have spent the last 10 years dissecting every "OK" hand gesture by repubs and rejecting repub claims like that the charlottesville or jan 6 rioters were just regular guys. and yet now they make the same excuses for extremists on their own side. so pete hegseth's white power tattoos were bad, but graham platner's nazi tattoo is just fine, apparently. it's immoral and repugnant.
Is there a runoff? If not does the Republican have a chance of winning?
u cant fight realism with intolerance, thats maga prob country bro