To All: Should Dan Lipinski be Primaried?

[smoltchanov]

If that's the case, both you and I should be immediately banned as we are in no place to discuss or judge Americans for the choices they make.

It's one thing to discuss, and another - demand that someone be primaried. Everyone is free to discuss, but only people of the district must decide whether someone deserves a primary, and act accordingly. If they are satisfied with their congressman -  it's nobody else's business, and other must respect their choice.

[Figueira]

Let people of the district decide it THEMSELVES!!!

Why bother having a Congressional elections forum then?

Congressional elections exist exactly for purpose of  giving people of the districts the possibility to decide who represent them THEMSELVES, only this time - represent them in Washington (and that's the only distinction of congressional elections from state legislative). It's no one else's business. I really hate when anyone outside of district interferes in local electoral process, and it doesn't matter for me who they are - Koch brothers on Republican side or rich liberal Holliwood actors and producerson Democratic. They both are, essentially, the same for me. Such questions must be decided by local people, who decide whom to send to Washington (in Congressional case) to represent THEIR (not party or someone else) interests there...

Weren't you lecturing me about Charlie Baker a while back?

[smoltchanov]

Let people of the district decide it THEMSELVES!!!

Why bother having a Congressional elections forum then?

Congressional elections exist exactly for purpose of  giving people of the districts the possibility to decide who represent them THEMSELVES, only this time - represent them in Washington (and that's the only distinction of congressional elections from state legislative). It's no one else's business. I really hate when anyone outside of district interferes in local electoral process, and it doesn't matter for me who they are - Koch brothers on Republican side or rich liberal Holliwood actors and producerson Democratic. They both are, essentially, the same for me. Such questions must be decided by local people, who decide whom to send to Washington (in Congressional case) to represent THEIR (not party or someone else) interests there...

Weren't you lecturing me about Charlie Baker a while back?

Naturally i have my preferences. And Baker is one of my preferred politicians. I was always straight about it. But i never said, whom people of Massachussetts must vote - it's THEIR choice, not mine. If somebody would say - "if i would live in the district i would never vote for Lipinski and would help his possible primary opponent" - THAT would be absolutely fine with me. But when people, especially outside of district and even state, say that he must be primaried - excuse me, that's the question, which must be decided by people of the district, and ONLY by them. No one "must" anything to anyone else. If THEY wish - they will primary him, if not - he will be renominated unopposed. This year he already has an opponent, and, i hope, wins. That's all....

P.S. May be someone will dictate me whom must I vote for in local elections in Moscow the day after tomorrow?. I still think that i know better.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes, because he's "pro-life". I know this forum is usually fine with limiting women's rights, but for me, it's a deal breaker.

Over 60% endorse primarying him .

Hence 'usually' . Still, I've just noticed a surprising amount of leftists here putting abortion as a very low priority position, so it's admittedly not a statistical observation. People might endorse primarying him for other reasons like his generally more conservative stances for all we know, though.

I, too, have noticed young liberals and conservatives(at least on Atlas) generally agree upon a 16-30 week ban, or somewhere thereof, and very, very, very few are supportive of partial birth abortion.

[Donerail]

that is because this forum is almost entirely men. easy to "compromise" on rights if they're not your own

[PoliticalShelter]

Keep in mind that one third of all democrats describe themselves as pro-life.
Couple this with the pro choice democrats who couldn't give a toss about cultural war issues, and I would probably say that a majority of democrats in general don't care all that much about abortion.

This is definitely something where the activist wing of the party is out of step with rank and file democrats, in terms of priorities.

[Figueira]

Keep in mind that one third of all democrats describe themselves as pro-life.
Couple this with the pro choice democrats who couldn't give a toss about cultural war issues, and I would probably say that a majority of democrats in general don't care all that much about abortion.

This is definitely something where the activist wing of the party is out of step with rank and file democrats, in terms of priorities.

There are other issues Lipinski is downright reactionary on besides abortion.

[Dr. MB]

No.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

that is because this forum is almost entirely men. easy to "compromise" on rights if they're not your own

In all fairness, I don't think polling suggests there is a significant gender difference in the issue of abortion. Men are more likely to not care about the subject entirely either way, as you might expect.

[Badger]

He is the worst Democrat in Congress, so yes, of course he should be primaried.

[Badger]

Just because a district is Democratic, doesn't mean the district is liberal. The same goes for Republcian/conservative. He's perfect for his district and is a heroic defender of life!

Considering all the right wingers here hoping he stays in congress, that's kind of a good reasoning.

Not to mention he's a machine hack.

[Blair]

In 2020: Should Donald Trump be beaten?

Atlas: no, the US is a socially conservative country, you authoritarian!

I do love the idea that someone who denies people their civil rights should not be challenged by his own party if his own district is somehow said to mirror his views.

[smoltchanov]

In 2020: Should Donald Trump be beaten?

Atlas: no, the US is a socially conservative country, you authoritarian!

I do love the idea that someone who denies people their civil rights should not be challenged by his own party if his own district is somehow said to mirror his views.

If his district mirrors his views he may be challenged (if people of the district wish to do it), but it's very likely he will get reelected. And it's ONLY for people of the district (and courts if neccessary) to decide whether he denies some people their civil rights or not. It's absolutely no one else business... Again - if his views mirrors district's - he will get reelected exactly because of that.

[Figueira]

In 2020: Should Donald Trump be beaten?

Atlas: no, the US is a socially conservative country, you authoritarian!

I do love the idea that someone who denies people their civil rights should not be challenged by his own party if his own district is somehow said to mirror his views.

If his district mirrors his views he may be challenged (if people of the district wish to do it), but it's very likely he will get reelected. And it's ONLY for people of the district (and courts if neccessary) to decide whether he denies some people their civil rights or not. It's absolutely no one else business... Again - if his views mirrors district's - he will get reelected exactly because of that.

This thread is addressed "to all."