*Strength* is the factor that will be prioritized by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and its new chair, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. They’re prepared to intervene in contested primaries. As Axios reports, Senate Democrats want to avoid the GOP's Obama-era pain of watching preferred candidates lose primaries to unelectable newcomers.
*Strength* is the factor that will be prioritized by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and its new chair, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. They’re prepared to intervene in contested primaries. As Axios reports, Senate Democrats want to avoid the GOP's Obama-era pain of watching preferred candidates lose primaries to unelectable newcomers.
Yeah, because Schumer and Gillibrand are experts at electability *eye roll* (To be clear I think Roy Cooper is the best option in NC, but this does nothing to help dispel the accusations of putting their finger on the scales for their preferred candidates)
Roy Cooper is well liked by Democrats and some Rs here in NC -- he's a center left Dem that's moderate enough for squishy Rs and indies without damaging his progressive creds. Trump's disastrous second term (aka the plane collision and inflation) is going to be politically toxic for Thom Tillis and potentially pearl clutcher Susan Collins.
It's going to be a hard-fought race, probably as much funding and attention as a potential Kemp-Ossoff one next year.
Again, I like Roy Cooper and think he'll be a fine candidate. But in the long run, Republicans may have missed their chance to take back the Senate with bad candidates in 2010 but they still ended up controlling the chamber for 6 of the last 10 years so it seemed to work out in the end.
Schumer has picked some turkeys in the past, this is true. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans have over-eagerly embraced candidates who can finance their own campaigns. In this regards, I trust Gillibrand more than Schumer.
What I do hope is that Democratic leaders will sit down with people that definitely should not be running, and quietly convince them not to do so. The very last thing we need is ugly primaries that leave our eventual candidate injured and weakened for the general election.
That’s not what I am saying. And certainly we don’t want "coronation by the hidden powers that be" – voters should decide! However, primaries are often overcrowded, and all too often include absolutely-marginal candidates, as well as toxic mudslingers who through their losing campaign leave the winner damaged.
I think it's fair to limit primaries to 2-3 candidates. But also who's to judge who is a "toxic mudslinger" but also when have we seen this on the Democratic side? I don't know that I can think of an example of this happening. Admittedly the voters make mistakes sometimes just look at Fetterman & Lamb.
Primaries can have as many candidates as they want. I don't think anyone should be in a position of deciding if there should be anywhere from 2-3 candidates. That's up to any person's right to run for office.
Also, I don't follow you - How have voters made mistakes with Fetterman & Lamb?
That's subject to anyone's interpretation but Fetterman ended up being more liberal than Lamb as a candidate. On the other hand, given how flawed Dr. Oz was as a Senate candidate, I don't see how Lamb would have had difficulty defeating Dr. Oz in the general election.
On the other hand, Malcolm Kenyatta as a Senate candidate running was also quite liberal from what I understood.
Good.. our side needs to play hardball in every potentially winnable race..taking back the Senate will be extremely difficult, but not impossible; obviously, our side needs as few retirements in competitive seats as possible, but I am extremely confident in Gillibrand as we move forward into the cycle
Cooper would likely wrap the primary up just on the strength of previous runs. I think most Democrats would just wait till 28 for the other senate seat and/or another easier shot at statewide office.
*Strength* is the factor that will be prioritized by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and its new chair, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. They’re prepared to intervene in contested primaries. As Axios reports, Senate Democrats want to avoid the GOP's Obama-era pain of watching preferred candidates lose primaries to unelectable newcomers.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/31/senate-democrats-primaries-gillibrand-schumer
Yeah, because Schumer and Gillibrand are experts at electability *eye roll* (To be clear I think Roy Cooper is the best option in NC, but this does nothing to help dispel the accusations of putting their finger on the scales for their preferred candidates)
Roy Cooper is well liked by Democrats and some Rs here in NC -- he's a center left Dem that's moderate enough for squishy Rs and indies without damaging his progressive creds. Trump's disastrous second term (aka the plane collision and inflation) is going to be politically toxic for Thom Tillis and potentially pearl clutcher Susan Collins.
It's going to be a hard-fought race, probably as much funding and attention as a potential Kemp-Ossoff one next year.
Again, I like Roy Cooper and think he'll be a fine candidate. But in the long run, Republicans may have missed their chance to take back the Senate with bad candidates in 2010 but they still ended up controlling the chamber for 6 of the last 10 years so it seemed to work out in the end.
It's the correct strategy
Schumer has picked some turkeys in the past, this is true. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans have over-eagerly embraced candidates who can finance their own campaigns. In this regards, I trust Gillibrand more than Schumer.
What I do hope is that Democratic leaders will sit down with people that definitely should not be running, and quietly convince them not to do so. The very last thing we need is ugly primaries that leave our eventual candidate injured and weakened for the general election.
God forbid the party of democracy allows the people to decide who's unelectable and who isn't.
That’s not what I am saying. And certainly we don’t want "coronation by the hidden powers that be" – voters should decide! However, primaries are often overcrowded, and all too often include absolutely-marginal candidates, as well as toxic mudslingers who through their losing campaign leave the winner damaged.
I think it's fair to limit primaries to 2-3 candidates. But also who's to judge who is a "toxic mudslinger" but also when have we seen this on the Democratic side? I don't know that I can think of an example of this happening. Admittedly the voters make mistakes sometimes just look at Fetterman & Lamb.
Primaries can have as many candidates as they want. I don't think anyone should be in a position of deciding if there should be anywhere from 2-3 candidates. That's up to any person's right to run for office.
Also, I don't follow you - How have voters made mistakes with Fetterman & Lamb?
In hindsight Lamb was clearly the better candidate.
Fetterman clearly won; so I simply disagree with your post
That's subject to anyone's interpretation but Fetterman ended up being more liberal than Lamb as a candidate. On the other hand, given how flawed Dr. Oz was as a Senate candidate, I don't see how Lamb would have had difficulty defeating Dr. Oz in the general election.
On the other hand, Malcolm Kenyatta as a Senate candidate running was also quite liberal from what I understood.
😂
horrible strategy; pure loser strategy this
Good.. our side needs to play hardball in every potentially winnable race..taking back the Senate will be extremely difficult, but not impossible; obviously, our side needs as few retirements in competitive seats as possible, but I am extremely confident in Gillibrand as we move forward into the cycle
Cooper would likely wrap the primary up just on the strength of previous runs. I think most Democrats would just wait till 28 for the other senate seat and/or another easier shot at statewide office.