But if you read the linked articles (and others) this case is much like many other examples of supporting the perceived “weaker” candidate, and the strategy is pretty much the same in a lot of places: when the Democratic Party sees a somewhat moderate candidate running in a swing district that they think they can win, they lend primary support to the more extreme, polarizing opposition candidate that they think will have a harder time winning in the general election. These days the more extreme, polarizing candidate is invariably a Trump-loving nut job. Someone who will do damage whether they win or lose just by being given a platform. So as far as I’m concerned this strategy is always harmful and Ill-advised.
2 Likes
Having been firmly convinced in 2016 that “Nobody would be stupid enough to actually vote for Trump.”, this Michigander does not believe this a prudent strategy.
3 Likes
Gotta agree. In the past, democrats could boost a merely incompetent candidate. Or perhaps one with the kind of baggage that could sink them later on. Now? Any GOP candidate is somewhere on the spectrum from bad to awful to actually harmful to democracy
I hope for all our sakes this guy doesn’t win in the end.
3 Likes
Again, as noted upthread: Michigan has open primaries and no party affiliation requirements. The only potential shennanigan is the commercials, otherwise it was just a normal Michigan primary.
3 Likes
I miss the Dems of old, Gary Hart and Dick Gephardt in particular.
CO has a strong presence in that letter following a failed campaign by a Schumer-associated PAC to boost a MAGA dolt here.
Notably, our current feckless Senators have nothing to say about it.
In general, I agree with you. In this specific case, the assumption that people from outside the state seem to be making, is that Gibbs is more extreme than Meijer. That assumption is false.
Which is more distopian? Mad Max or Gilead? I would argue they are equally distopian; and they are the respective visions of Gibbs and Meijer.
2 Likes
Meijer is the only first-term House member in history to vote to impeach a member of his own party. Does that make him a hero or a great guy? Hell no, it’s something that every House member should have done at a minimum. But he took that vote knowing it would jeopardize his political future, and it’s a very important difference between him an an election denier who is actively trying to destroy the machinery of our democracy. Whatever other flaws Meijer has (and there are plenty) there’s simply no equating the two.
1 Like
Again, that is full of flawed assumptions. One would love to see a new civil war. The other wouldn’t, but not because he’s some kind of nice guy; it’s because he wants a strong federal government to enforce draconian Christo-fascist policies.
You’re still debating that Lawful Evil is somehow preferable to Chaotic Evil.
If two men both have a vision for a terrible future that I disagree with, and one wants to achieve it democratically (and, critically, is willing to accept electoral defeat) while the other wants to achieve it by dismantling democracy, yes, I will always prefer the former to the latter.
1 Like
When the lawful evil candidate has shown he will accept the result of an election defeat while the chaotic evil candidate has shown he will foment a violent insurrection in the wake of an election defeat then yeah, the lawful one is preferable. (As an adversary, that is. Neither deserves our active support.)
If that’s how you interpret the Mitch McConnell approach, then I can’t help you. The idea that abusing the system from within(including breaking laws and violating the Constitution gently) vs breaking the system violently is somehow preferable, then we definitely are never going to agree on this.
1860: “We must hold the Union together. It is the only way to ensure that the institution of slavery can survive and spread to the whole country!”
2 Likes
I don’t believe an insurrectionist should be allowed a place on the ballot, much less receive Democratic support to get on that ballot.
I don’t think it is fair or accurate to suggest my position is in any way supportive of candidates who champion evil policies.
[Edited to clarify response]
2 Likes
That’s not the comparison I was making and you know it. That was a comparison to Meijer and his ilk, illustrating how eroding democracy from the inside is as harmful as tearing it down from the outside.
2 Likes
One had a breaking point with a literal violent coup.
Still seems to be fully on board with the GOP campaign to utterly rat fuck our elections and remove your right to vote. Packing the court with political functionaries so they set policy outside of legislation.
I don’t see that as being down with democracy. Or interested in protecting it.
Trump didn’t happen in a vacuum. He likely wouldn’t have even gotten elected without a long program of dismantling our democracy in the first place. Nothing indicates Meijer was anything but happy with that, right up to the point of this particular crew doing it by force.
3 Likes
So by that logic Lincoln would have been wise to provide covert support the insurrectionists’ political campaigns in the hopes they would be easier to defeat in the general election?
1 Like
And the other was in full support of the violent coup. Some folks on this forum
don’t see that as an important distinction between the two men. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
It’s a distinction.
But not the one some here are putting out there.
It’s quiet coup vs violent coup.
Meijer and others deserve credit for, after the fact, finally calling out Trump. But let’s not pretend they give a shit about our democracy, base rights, and re-stabilizing it.
It’s the difference between being down with President For Life Trump right now. And paving the way for a different Trump later.
I’m not about to crow about politicians who actively work to permanently embed minority rule, who actively work to dismantle political norms and our base democracy. I’m certainly not going to credit them with protecting or respecting a democracy their party actively and publicly argues against.
4 Likes
If they had 1/5 of the campaign funds and little to no name recognition in their district? I would be surprised if he didn’t!
No one is asking you to. No one here has argued Meijer deserves to win the election. The question at hand is which candidate is better to have running against the candidate we want to win.
When an insurrectionist is on the ballot that means that violent insurrection is one of the issues treated as a subject worthy of serious debate in our political discourse, in addition to all the other evil policies supported by both Republican candidates.
Unconditional support of a party breeds this kind of behavior. Voters have got to get willing to punish the Democrats when they act in extremely bad faith, even if that just means staying home or voting Green. Otherwise why not keep doing this?
