IL-3 Dem Primary: Election Day!

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

NEWMAN TAKES THE LEAD!

DOWN WITH BIGOTED DAN.

[scutosaurus]

Not sure if this is enough for Newman to hold the lead, to be honest. Let's see how Cook and DuPage go.

(how many dupage precincts are even in this district lmao)

There's only two, and one of them already came in. It had 14 votes.

Anyway, let's go Marie! Hoping she can pull it out; it's gonna be close either way.

[Classic Conservative]

Why does Kornacki have different numbers. This is so confusing.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/976274896262230018

I'm pro-choice, pro-SSM, and pro-universal healthcare, and yet I'd vote for Lipinski just because the SJW left is so disastrous.

Well, you'd probably agree with his stance on immigration, too. Newman's would be disqualifying for you.

Marie under 2,000

Daniel Lipinski*
37,433   51.3%   
Marie Newman
35,550   48.7   
72,983 votes, 77% reporting (384 of 500 precincts)

You're not necessarily a homophobe just by opposing gay marriage. And for me, it's perfectly reasonable if you still don't support it personally, while at the same time accepting that Obergefell is the law of the land.

Holy hell you are a terrible human being

Really? Does it really make someone a terrible human being to be unable to shake of the socialization of generations of mainstream marginalization, but still be humble enough to overcome it and accept the times are changing, despite one's personal biases? Really?

The same thing with abortion: the point at which an embryo becomes a person isn't evident to the average person - you can have your beliefs, but they are learned; they're not intuitive. Does it really make someone a terrible person to have a different understanding about when life starts? And if not, does it really make them a terrible person to place a person's survival over a second person's bodily autonomy? It's not an objective answer, it's value-based.

Personally pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights, before you go ahead and call me a bigot myself.

Thank you. This is the purpose of civil debate. You may not necessarily agree with someone on the issues, but you understand where they are coming from, debate the merits of their points, and accept that others have differing positions. When you just scream at other people, label them, and refuse to hear where they are coming from, then you lose all credibility. I have no issue whatsoever with people who are pro-choice; it is just a political disagreement, and should not become a personal one.

That's what you don't get, man. Politics is personal. When it comes down to your right to marry, your right to have healthcare, your right to make your own body decisions, it's hard to see where the other person is coming from. It can't be civil when the other side says you don't deserve to make those choices for yourself. When it's life in death, as it is in healthcare, it becomes personal.

I would love if this could be the West Wing and we could "disagree without being disagreeable" and find common ground, but that's been used to subject and oppress people in this country for years.

I've never argued that people should be denied access to healthcare, or that they should be denied the right to live a productive and fulfilling life. My whole point in involving myself in this thread has been to argue that it is dangerous to wage "absolutist" campaigns against politicians solely because they are not fanatics on one issue, or represent different ideological wings of a party. And what do I get for my efforts: I get insulted, being called a "moron", a "horrible human being", and so forth. People who shout over eachother are less likely to gain the support of others.

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.

I certainly don't think Lipinski is an angel, and I don't necessarily think that he's the best Democrat to be representing this district. But I also don't think that "purity drives" are the way to go. As Karpatsky pointed out on this thread, you cannot expect everyone who is part of a party coalition to instantly toe the line on every issue. It takes time and effort for people to adapt.

[Karpatsky]

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.

[Sestak]

D+1?

Don't jump the gun.

[henster]

Looks like an error.

[Figueira]

Gah, this is probably a mistake on the NYT website.

[MAINEiac4434]

Not sure if this is enough for Newman to hold the lead, to be honest. Let's see how Cook and DuPage go.

(how many dupage precincts are even in this district lmao)

I think it says just 2.

Not sure if this is enough for Newman to hold the lead, to be honest. Let's see how Cook and DuPage go.

(how many dupage precincts are even in this district lmao)

There's only two, and one of them already came in. It had 14 votes.

Anyway, let's go Marie! Hoping she can pull it out; it's gonna be close either way.

Yeah, I hadn't checked the reporting totals for awhile.

I kinda wanna know why that tiny section of DuPage was in the 3rd.

[Bidenworth2020]

Gah, this is probably a mistake on the NYT website.

how?

[Illiniwek]

Not sure if this is enough for Newman to hold the lead, to be honest. Let's see how Cook and DuPage go.

(how many dupage precincts are even in this district lmao)

I think it says just 2.

Not sure if this is enough for Newman to hold the lead, to be honest. Let's see how Cook and DuPage go.

(how many dupage precincts are even in this district lmao)

There's only two, and one of them already came in. It had 14 votes.

Anyway, let's go Marie! Hoping she can pull it out; it's gonna be close either way.

Yeah, I hadn't checked the reporting totals for awhile.

I kinda wanna know why that tiny section of DuPage was in the 3rd.

Someone probably coughed when they were drawing the line.

[Classic Conservative]

DDHQ has different numbers than NYT

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is there any place to double-check the NYT's numbers? I'm still not buying this Will margin.

[Green Line]

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/IL/Will/74346/Web02.194085/#/

Will County itself is not reporting this...

[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.

[Suburbia]

I think Rep. Lipniski wins renomination.

It shows that the Democratic Party is moving leftward politically.

Moderates don't really have places in political parties these days. Oh well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/IL/Will/74346/Web02.194085/#/

Will County itself is not reporting this...

OK, yeah, this is bullsh*t.

[GoTfan]

So Lipinski will win then?

[Classic Conservative]

They just hit a seven instead of a four.

[MAINEiac4434]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/976280938198966272

[Karpatsky]

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'.

[AtorBoltox]

I think Rep. Lipniski wins renomination.

It shows that the Democratic Party is moving leftward politically.

Moderates don't really have places in political parties these days. Oh well.

Lipinski isn't a moderate. He's to the right of Larry Hogan and Charlie Baker and represents a safe democratic district

[Sestak]

R hold.

[Antonio the Sixth]

...and it's just been corrected. Lipinski leads again. Damn.

[Bidenworth2020]

rip