There is grumbling here in Fairfax County where I live - albeit in Don Beyer's district - about challenging Connolly next year. Locals are LIVID with him regarding his callous comments. The most generous thing I can say about him is that he's a throwback to a time when the Democratic Party was very much the minority party here - before 2004, the Republican Presidential candidate won the county EVERY time except in 1964 going back to 1944. Those days are very much over with Republicans holding ONE major office here - the Springfield District of the Board of Supervisors - and Connolly always a centrist Democrat has never fully caught up with that fact. He has goodwill here with events like his annual St Patrick's Day Fete, but even that hasn't stopped the grumbling. We shall see what happens.
To Beyer's credit, he does have regular town halls and attends local events. He also is very good on keeping close tabs on important issues here, i.e. coming out strongly AGAINST building a casino in Tysons (which I agree with 100 per cent). But yes, the realist in me expect him to be done in a few election cycles to make way for some younger blood. The VA-8 Democratic primary to succeed him when he either dies or retires though is going to be a mess.
I remember that 2010 race well. The fact that he won re-election there in 2010 at all shows he’s a pretty good candidate. The district at the time was drawn to re-elected Republican Tom Davis (the Fairfax county chair prior to Connolly) and excluded as many heavily Democratic areas as possible.
That last Republican standing, Springfield district Supervisor Pat Herrity, is now running for Lieutenant Governor. His father, Jack Herrity, was Fairfax Board chair for three terms in the 1970s and 80s, when the county's population and business expansion was, well, phenomenal. Unfortunately the transportation infrastructure didn't keep up with the population growth and economic development, and gridlocked voters booted him when he ran for a fourth term.
Not going to help him survive a primary challenge next year. His district is a D+18 Congressional District and not far from federal government agencies.
If Dick Durbin doesn't retire this cycle, we need to come for him HARD and make him absolutely choke on his precious blue slips, not to mention his decades of voting with the right wing on everything from wars to civil liberties. Through his entire career, he has actively harmed and hindered the progressive movement and continues to do so. He is not a thought leader, an activist, or any kind of motivation for the base or movement. He really just takes up precious space.
Though, the chances of facing a seriously contested primary can push older incumbents towards retirement. Who wants to spend half a year in a slog through a nasty primary at 81 years old, especially if already considering retirement?
I'd love to see Underwood threaten a primary to force him into retirement. As a former constituent I'd prefer he just take the hint and shuffle off into retirement.
Hold on, what you’re saying about Durbin voting with the GOP on wars is just not accurate.
Dick Durbin voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and was consistently against the war from the get go. In fact, his record is better than Joe Biden and John Kerry’s when they served in the Senate back then.
You're definitely right. I must have lumped him in with Schumer and the other Dem leaders. I was looking at Durbin's House votes a few days ago and realized what a disappointment he was back then, but he has been much better as a Senator, except for the blue slip BS.
Not a problem. I understand though and agree with your overall sentiment and argument about Durbin.
However, in the post-Trump world since 2016, it’s still fair to lump Durbin along with Schumer to the extent that they are behind the times with where the Democratic Party should be going. Just because Durbin had a good track record on fighting the Iraq War doesn’t mean he’s exactly firing up the base.
Durbin I think, like Schumer, wants to maintain the tradition of Congress and civility for the most part. That’s a noble thing but doesn’t make enough progress.
I don't agree that all those incumbents merit primary challenges, or that successful ones will necessarily result in upgrades.
The author is continuing what he did when he co-wrote the "Primaries For Progress", later "Primary School" Substack newsletter: recommending ways to shift the Democratic Party to the left in primaries both of incumbents and in open seats, but limiting it to districts or offices where there's little or no chance of doing so backfiring by potentially flipping the races to the GOP.
That’s interesting background on the author and a valuable clarification. I myself don’t have an informed opinion on most of these incumbents, but I found The Prospect’s article interesting and thought it might spark some interesting discussions here.
If anyone deserves to be replaced in a primary I would suggest that a certain Detroit area congresswoman who did everything possible she could last year to undermine our ticket and who sits in a safe seat deserves to be first in line. Her failure to endorse Kamala Harris may have actually cost us Michigan in 2024 and she needs to go.
Agreed. I saw some video of AOC at a committee doing her thing and it’s like damn, why can’t we have more people like her. Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Omar have made themselves political liabilities that costs us votes.
AOC’s grown on me as a politician. She’s extremely intelligent but knows she has to be pragmatic if she wants to continue to be relevant. I was also impressed with how she was opening to listening to voters in her own district who voted for Trump last year instead of trying to be arrogant and condescending to them.
Solid list. Important to prioritize officials that are potentially vulnerable over challenges that might make us feel good but are less likely to succeed.
Based on my admittedly limited knowledge, I'd highlight Moulton as a viable target. Massachusetts' dem establish will typically circle the wagons, but everything I've read and seen indicates that there is no love lost for Moulton there. His institutional support should be weaker than most incumbents. His vanity 2020 presidential run and quixotic anti-Pelosi stint in 2018 give ammunition to work for with "not focusing on his district" kind of attacks. Plus, it's a safe seat that any reasonably scandal free democrat could hold reliably.
I find it odd when candidates that win office by successfully primarying a member of their own party adopt a cavalier attitude for their own ability to win primaries. They know first hand that incumbents can lose in a primary yet so many of them act oblivious to the possibility that it could happen to them.
I remember being optimistic about him after 2014 as well.
I don't feel bad about it though. There are a lot of flaws with the dem establishment so a rising anti-establishment person showing up, ousting an known corrupt incumbent in a primary, and in all likelihood preventing us from losing a blue seat in a red wave, is going to get people excited for that person's future.
Unfortunately in Moulton's case I think his ego got the better of him. He's problematic and we can and should do better, but he's not problematic in the same vein as someone like Gottheimer, who seems almost gleeful in his shittiness.
I give Gottheimer credit for one thing - He unseated entrenched incumbent Republican Congressman Scott Garrett, one of the few House wins Democrats got back in 2016.
Peter Blute and Peter Torkildsen were the last elected, both were first elected in 1992 and reelected in 1994, before losing in 1996.
Both of them are still in their 60s. Younger than some newer officials, despite not having been in office for nearly 30 years. By my count, younger than two house members first elected in 2024 (Latimer and Turner), and two first elected in 2022 (Self and Thanedar). Plus a further four first elected in 2020.
Ro Khanna also is not going to fight hard against Silicon Valley’s corruptive influence on the economy and society as tech companies and CEOs have been donors of his campaign long ago. He should have been primaried sooner.
I remember it was Glen the Plumber on Daily Kos who provided the most information out of anyone on the site regarding Khanna.
This is pretty much a list of Dems that the author doesn't consider to be sympathetic enough to a) Palestine and b) social justice issues. It doesn't take into account anything else that I can discern, like the relative partisanship of their districts. He's got a few good choices on there (Shri Thanedar for one) but otherwise, it's a pretty poorly selected and argued list.
Interesting. "Palestinian" / Palestine is mentioned explicitly under only two of the names: Dan Goldman and Josh Gottheimer, both of whom are Jewish – in fact, I believe they’re the only Jews on that list.
(I do take issue with another politician on that list, Danny Davis, for calling Louis Farrakhan "an outstanding human being".)
I don't disagree with many of the names on the author's list, but I'd prefer that he back up his assertions with something stronger than flame-throwing, which was his main strategy. But maybe flame-throwing is fine if this was really only aimed at insiders eho know the details. If this is the general tone of The American Prospect, then I can add it to the list of sites to ignore.
Interesting note from The American Prospect. In this article they list ten Democrats they believe need to be primaried – and their reasons. why.
https://prospect.org/politics/2025-02-27-these-ten-democrats-need-to-be-primaried/
Ritchie Torres should be on the list. At the top.
Completely agree with all of them, although Dan Goldman made himself useful during one of the impeachments.
There is grumbling here in Fairfax County where I live - albeit in Don Beyer's district - about challenging Connolly next year. Locals are LIVID with him regarding his callous comments. The most generous thing I can say about him is that he's a throwback to a time when the Democratic Party was very much the minority party here - before 2004, the Republican Presidential candidate won the county EVERY time except in 1964 going back to 1944. Those days are very much over with Republicans holding ONE major office here - the Springfield District of the Board of Supervisors - and Connolly always a centrist Democrat has never fully caught up with that fact. He has goodwill here with events like his annual St Patrick's Day Fete, but even that hasn't stopped the grumbling. We shall see what happens.
Yeah, it’s definitely not 2010 where Connolly losing was a real risk. The NoVA talent bench is deep.
On that note, Beyer should consider calling it a career, too
To Beyer's credit, he does have regular town halls and attends local events. He also is very good on keeping close tabs on important issues here, i.e. coming out strongly AGAINST building a casino in Tysons (which I agree with 100 per cent). But yes, the realist in me expect him to be done in a few election cycles to make way for some younger blood. The VA-8 Democratic primary to succeed him when he either dies or retires though is going to be a mess.
I remember that 2010 race well. The fact that he won re-election there in 2010 at all shows he’s a pretty good candidate. The district at the time was drawn to re-elected Republican Tom Davis (the Fairfax county chair prior to Connolly) and excluded as many heavily Democratic areas as possible.
That last Republican standing, Springfield district Supervisor Pat Herrity, is now running for Lieutenant Governor. His father, Jack Herrity, was Fairfax Board chair for three terms in the 1970s and 80s, when the county's population and business expansion was, well, phenomenal. Unfortunately the transportation infrastructure didn't keep up with the population growth and economic development, and gridlocked voters booted him when he ran for a fourth term.
What did Connolly say?
He made comments saying federal workers should just do what Musk wants and submit five things they did.
Not going to help him survive a primary challenge next year. His district is a D+18 Congressional District and not far from federal government agencies.
Given those comments plus the fact that he has esophageal cancer, I wouldn't be surprised if he hangs it up next year.
im a fan of Goldman but imo most of those districts can have primary races that wont change the party outcomes in november
If Dick Durbin doesn't retire this cycle, we need to come for him HARD and make him absolutely choke on his precious blue slips, not to mention his decades of voting with the right wing on everything from wars to civil liberties. Through his entire career, he has actively harmed and hindered the progressive movement and continues to do so. He is not a thought leader, an activist, or any kind of motivation for the base or movement. He really just takes up precious space.
I'd bet on Durbin surviving
Welp, guess we should abandon all hope, then.
cant agree with you here; hope is always a good thing to me
FFS dude it was snark. You're so quick to have a comment for everyone else's comment that you're missing the entire point of what people are saying.
apologies..all good
I think it’s likelier than he retires this cycle than lose a primary
Though, the chances of facing a seriously contested primary can push older incumbents towards retirement. Who wants to spend half a year in a slog through a nasty primary at 81 years old, especially if already considering retirement?
who is going to primary him though??..see what i am saying??
I’m not disagreeing with
I'd love to see Underwood threaten a primary to force him into retirement. As a former constituent I'd prefer he just take the hint and shuffle off into retirement.
Hold on, what you’re saying about Durbin voting with the GOP on wars is just not accurate.
Dick Durbin voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and was consistently against the war from the get go. In fact, his record is better than Joe Biden and John Kerry’s when they served in the Senate back then.
https://www.ontheissues.org/senate/richard_durbin.htm
You're definitely right. I must have lumped him in with Schumer and the other Dem leaders. I was looking at Durbin's House votes a few days ago and realized what a disappointment he was back then, but he has been much better as a Senator, except for the blue slip BS.
Not a problem. I understand though and agree with your overall sentiment and argument about Durbin.
However, in the post-Trump world since 2016, it’s still fair to lump Durbin along with Schumer to the extent that they are behind the times with where the Democratic Party should be going. Just because Durbin had a good track record on fighting the Iraq War doesn’t mean he’s exactly firing up the base.
Durbin I think, like Schumer, wants to maintain the tradition of Congress and civility for the most part. That’s a noble thing but doesn’t make enough progress.
I don't agree that all those incumbents merit primary challenges, or that successful ones will necessarily result in upgrades.
The author is continuing what he did when he co-wrote the "Primaries For Progress", later "Primary School" Substack newsletter: recommending ways to shift the Democratic Party to the left in primaries both of incumbents and in open seats, but limiting it to districts or offices where there's little or no chance of doing so backfiring by potentially flipping the races to the GOP.
That’s interesting background on the author and a valuable clarification. I myself don’t have an informed opinion on most of these incumbents, but I found The Prospect’s article interesting and thought it might spark some interesting discussions here.
totally agree with your take; all primary opponents are not necessarily better than the incumbent
If anyone deserves to be replaced in a primary I would suggest that a certain Detroit area congresswoman who did everything possible she could last year to undermine our ticket and who sits in a safe seat deserves to be first in line. Her failure to endorse Kamala Harris may have actually cost us Michigan in 2024 and she needs to go.
second your motion
I doubt it cost us MI, nor would that have ultimately mattered, but I agree I'd love to see her go...
Agreed. I saw some video of AOC at a committee doing her thing and it’s like damn, why can’t we have more people like her. Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Omar have made themselves political liabilities that costs us votes.
AOC’s grown on me as a politician. She’s extremely intelligent but knows she has to be pragmatic if she wants to continue to be relevant. I was also impressed with how she was opening to listening to voters in her own district who voted for Trump last year instead of trying to be arrogant and condescending to them.
And she’s also a good team player.
Gee, I can’t imagine why.
Solid list. Important to prioritize officials that are potentially vulnerable over challenges that might make us feel good but are less likely to succeed.
Based on my admittedly limited knowledge, I'd highlight Moulton as a viable target. Massachusetts' dem establish will typically circle the wagons, but everything I've read and seen indicates that there is no love lost for Moulton there. His institutional support should be weaker than most incumbents. His vanity 2020 presidential run and quixotic anti-Pelosi stint in 2018 give ammunition to work for with "not focusing on his district" kind of attacks. Plus, it's a safe seat that any reasonably scandal free democrat could hold reliably.
I find it odd when candidates that win office by successfully primarying a member of their own party adopt a cavalier attitude for their own ability to win primaries. They know first hand that incumbents can lose in a primary yet so many of them act oblivious to the possibility that it could happen to them.
Moulton’s mediocrity really bums me out; I was really excited about him in 2014 (granted I had more “bold centrist” inclinations then than I do now)
I remember being optimistic about him after 2014 as well.
I don't feel bad about it though. There are a lot of flaws with the dem establishment so a rising anti-establishment person showing up, ousting an known corrupt incumbent in a primary, and in all likelihood preventing us from losing a blue seat in a red wave, is going to get people excited for that person's future.
Unfortunately in Moulton's case I think his ego got the better of him. He's problematic and we can and should do better, but he's not problematic in the same vein as someone like Gottheimer, who seems almost gleeful in his shittiness.
I give Gottheimer credit for one thing - He unseated entrenched incumbent Republican Congressman Scott Garrett, one of the few House wins Democrats got back in 2016.
That's it.
The beauty of primarying Moulton is that his district is blue with a rating of D+11.
When was the last time the GOP ever won a House seat in MA?
Peter Blute and Peter Torkildsen were the last elected, both were first elected in 1992 and reelected in 1994, before losing in 1996.
Both of them are still in their 60s. Younger than some newer officials, despite not having been in office for nearly 30 years. By my count, younger than two house members first elected in 2024 (Latimer and Turner), and two first elected in 2022 (Self and Thanedar). Plus a further four first elected in 2020.
Ro Khanna also is not going to fight hard against Silicon Valley’s corruptive influence on the economy and society as tech companies and CEOs have been donors of his campaign long ago. He should have been primaried sooner.
I remember it was Glen the Plumber on Daily Kos who provided the most information out of anyone on the site regarding Khanna.
Khanna is insufferable.
This is pretty much a list of Dems that the author doesn't consider to be sympathetic enough to a) Palestine and b) social justice issues. It doesn't take into account anything else that I can discern, like the relative partisanship of their districts. He's got a few good choices on there (Shri Thanedar for one) but otherwise, it's a pretty poorly selected and argued list.
Interesting. "Palestinian" / Palestine is mentioned explicitly under only two of the names: Dan Goldman and Josh Gottheimer, both of whom are Jewish – in fact, I believe they’re the only Jews on that list.
(I do take issue with another politician on that list, Danny Davis, for calling Louis Farrakhan "an outstanding human being".)
Well, he left out Ritchie Torres. And there’s probably no one worse on that issue in the caucus than him.
I'd like to add my rep Brad Sherman to the list. Personally, I think anyone who's been in Congress since the last century should be primaried.
But I also created a pretty rudimentary list of people that should theoretically be primaried. It's still a work in progress but it's something.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SZDvPXXQCp7cKeTtyYa9tMW2RSQbQbkADxrX-kAgWDo/edit?usp=sharing
Very interesting, but it looks like that document is not open access.
If you requested access I gave you access.
Yes, please, I would be very grateful.
I don't disagree with many of the names on the author's list, but I'd prefer that he back up his assertions with something stronger than flame-throwing, which was his main strategy. But maybe flame-throwing is fine if this was really only aimed at insiders eho know the details. If this is the general tone of The American Prospect, then I can add it to the list of sites to ignore.