14 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Miguel Parreno's avatar

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)

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

It's the correct strategy

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

God forbid the party of democracy allows the people to decide who's unelectable and who isn't.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

ThatтАЩs not what I am saying. And certainly we donтАЩt want "coronation by the hidden powers that be" тАУ 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.

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

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?

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

In hindsight Lamb was clearly the better candidate.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Fetterman clearly won; so I simply disagree with your post

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
benamery21's avatar

ЁЯШВ

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

horrible strategy; pure loser strategy this

Expand full comment
ErrorError