IL-3 Dem Primary: Election Day!

[Karpatsky]

NYT just fixed it

Daniel Lipinski*
41,290   50.9%   
Marie Newman
39,848   49.1
87% of precincts reporting

It's done.

Supporting same-sex marriage and voting to protect the rights of gay people isn't fanaticism, man. Supporting Obamacare certainly isn't fanaticism. It's rhetoric like this that's upsetting to us. I think it's crazy and dangerous that you would think that, and that you would be confused that Democrats do not want that in their party, especially from a solid Democratic district, especially when there's no guarantees we'll have a huge majority in the house and Lipinski's vote could (god forbid) become important.

And let's stop pretending Lipinski is some angel, here: he accused his opponent of anti-Catholicism, which is tremendously disingenuous, and the same "absolutist" thinking you're decrying, albeit theological instead of political.

The positions themselves are not fanaticism, the insistence that people who disagree with them are "terrible people" on the whole is. You can support primarying Lipitsky so that the district is better represented without demonizing his beliefs on the whole.

See, though, I think Democrats who oppose increasing access to healthcare and oppose gay rights should be attacked for that. You can disagree, of course, but there are Republicans in congress (not many, but some) that are better on those issues than Lipinski.

That's what's upsetting; this party is supposed to stand up for the people Lipinski tries to push down.

That's fine, and it's part of party politics. But there's a difference between attacking a position and attacking a person. There is a difference between supporting healthcare access and using a political position as a litmus test for whether someone is a 'good person'.

I think homophobes are bad people. Like, fundamentally. I don't care if they donate to charity or saved kittens from a burning building, if you think there should be one set of rights for one group of people and another for another group of people, that's pretty terrible.

Again, really? A socialized belief, which was relatively normal as few as ten years ago, invalidates the entirety of a person, especially when it's the sort of belief that few have the opportunity or will to change organically? I hope you are being hyperbolic, because to judge so wholely on such a thing is a real personality flaw. Otherwise, may the future judge you for what you thought was normal.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

DAN DAN DAN!!!

[Sestak]

At this point there's no reason for any liberals to vote in the general.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

DAN DAN DAN!!!

[AtorBoltox]

Conservatives- The campaign against Lipinski was divisive and harmful
Also conservatives=MARIE NEWMAN HATES CATHOLICS!!!

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Next time Marie, don't attack your own potential constituents.  It doesn't go over well.

Right? That's like someone saying the N-word in a Bronx seat or proclaiming "English Only" in New Mexico. Someone needed to know her audience.

[Green Line]

DAN DAN DAN!!!

[MAINEiac4434]

Supporting same-sex marriage and voting to protect the rights of gay people isn't fanaticism, man. Supporting Obamacare certainly isn't fanaticism. It's rhetoric like this that's upsetting to us. I think it's crazy and dangerous that you would think that, and that you would be confused that Democrats do not want that in their party, especially from a solid Democratic district, especially when there's no guarantees we'll have a huge majority in the house and Lipinski's vote could (god forbid) become important.

And let's stop pretending Lipinski is some angel, here: he accused his opponent of anti-Catholicism, which is tremendously disingenuous, and the same "absolutist" thinking you're decrying, albeit theological instead of political.

The positions themselves are not fanaticism, the insistence that people who disagree with them are "terrible people" on the whole is. You can support primarying Lipitsky so that the district is better represented without demonizing his beliefs on the whole.

See, though, I think Democrats who oppose increasing access to healthcare and oppose gay rights should be attacked for that. You can disagree, of course, but there are Republicans in congress (not many, but some) that are better on those issues than Lipinski.

That's what's upsetting; this party is supposed to stand up for the people Lipinski tries to push down.

He doesn't oppose increasing access to healthcare.  He opposes the way you want to do it.

I mean, he can say that, but it doesn't change the fact that he voted against the biggest bill that tried to actually do that in his entire tenure in Congress

It's easy to just dismiss Lipinski's anti-gay record as "moderation" when your livelihood as a gay person literally depends on the Democratic party supporting your right to marry, adopt, work, rent, live, etc, etc... To us this isn't something we can agree to disagree on. Hopefully that's understood.

This is my point, and you've made it much more concisely than I've been trying to.

Next time Marie, don't attack your own potential constituents.  It doesn't go over well.

dont call someone anti catholic

Yes! Even I'd vote for Lipinski over Arthur Jones (and Pritzker over Ives).

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

LOVE IT! My boy Lipinski saving the day.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

How much of Chicago is still out?

[AtorBoltox]

Can someone please explain how Newman 'attacked her own constituents'?

[Sestak]

Can someone please explain how Newman 'attacked her own constituents'?

[Green Line]

The people of the Southwest Side said NO to anti-life politics.

[Alabama_Indy10]

DAN DAN DAN!!!

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

It's easy to just dismiss Lipinski's anti-gay record as "moderation" when your livelihood as a gay person literally depends on the Democratic party supporting your right to marry, adopt, work, rent, live, etc, etc... To us this isn't something we can agree to disagree on. Hopefully that's understood.

Actually, it is really easy.

And this is why you'll lose in November when minorities don't turn out to vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

DAN DAN DAN!!!

[AtorBoltox]

Conservatives do realise that unless Lipinski now becomes a standard democrat he's out in 2020?

[Figueira]

Marie Newman ran a good campaign. But next time let's not go with a generic white liberal.

[Sestak]

Democrats should just stay home during the general. No point in voting in an R vs R election.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Democrats should just stay home during the general. No point in voting in an R vs R election.

[Sestak]

Conservatives do realise that unless Lipinski now becomes a standard democrat he's out in 2020?

It doesn't matter. Trump has another vote in the House for 2 years.

[Bidenworth2020]

At this point there's no reason for any liberals to vote in the general.

no, we gotta throw up a couple times and vote for lipinski with Arthur jones

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Conservatives do realise that unless Lipinski now becomes a standard democrat he's out in 2020?

Psh, if anything, this solidifies his place. If 2018 (the most SJW year to-date) of all years cannot unseat him, nothing will.

[junior chįmp]

Hopefully the Nazi wins the GE for lulz

[MAINEiac4434]

NYT just fixed it

Daniel Lipinski*
41,290   50.9%   
Marie Newman
39,848   49.1
87% of precincts reporting

It's done.

Supporting same-sex marriage and voting to protect the rights of gay people isn't fanaticism, man. Supporting Obamacare certainly isn't fanaticism. It's rhetoric like this that's upsetting to us. I think it's crazy and dangerous that you would think that, and that you would be confused that Democrats do not want that in their party, especially from a solid Democratic district, especially when there's no guarantees we'll have a huge majority in the house and Lipinski's vote could (god forbid) become important.

And let's stop pretending Lipinski is some angel, here: he accused his opponent of anti-Catholicism, which is tremendously disingenuous, and the same "absolutist" thinking you're decrying, albeit theological instead of political.

The positions themselves are not fanaticism, the insistence that people who disagree with them are "terrible people" on the whole is. You can support primarying Lipitsky so that the district is better represented without demonizing his beliefs on the whole.

See, though, I think Democrats who oppose increasing access to healthcare and oppose gay rights should be attacked for that. You can disagree, of course, but there are Republicans in congress (not many, but some) that are better on those issues than Lipinski.

That's what's upsetting; this party is supposed to stand up for the people Lipinski tries to push down.

That's fine, and it's part of party politics. But there's a difference between attacking a position and attacking a person. There is a difference between supporting healthcare access and using a political position as a litmus test for whether someone is a 'good person'.

I think homophobes are bad people. Like, fundamentally. I don't care if they donate to charity or saved kittens from a burning building, if you think there should be one set of rights for one group of people and another for another group of people, that's pretty terrible.

Again, really? A socialized belief, which was relatively normal as few as ten years ago, invalidates the entirety of a person, especially when it's the sort of belief that few have the opportunity or will to change organically? I hope you are being hyperbolic, because to judge so wholely on such a thing is a real personality flaw. Otherwise, may the future judge you for what you thought was normal.

I think you and I are arguing about different things here; I don't really care about someone's private beliefs. What I care about is if those private beliefs either become public or lead to them trying to advocate against the equality of every American citizen. Because that is a terrible thing to do, because it hurts people.