“Progressives should focus on downballot races”

[darklordoftech]

I keep reading this, but when they do, they get called “purity testers”, “not Democrats”, “unwilling to work with others”, etc., and Progressives mostly failed to win anything downballot in 2018 and have completely failed so far in 2020.

[Tintrlvr]

I keep reading this, but when they do, they get called “purity testers”, “not Democrats”, “unwilling to work with others”, etc., and Progressives mostly failed to win anything downballot in 2018 and have completely failed so far in 2020.

Run in open seats. It's only purity testing when you run against an effective incumbent in a primary. There are at many open Democratic-held seats every cycle.

[darklordoftech]

Adding to this, how do they prove their electability without winning the Presidency? I’ve seen tweets saying that Jessica Cisneros is unelectable and is a Republican plant.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Focusing downballot is fine.  The problem is that they keep jumping into primaries in ways that directly harm the Democratic Party.  Either they're trying to primary our leaders (Pelosi, Crowley) or they're trying to oust electable candidates in swing races and replace them with unelectable extremists (Manchin, Whitmer, Davids).

Also, a lot of their candidates are just goofy.  We only tend to remember the most credible ones and forget about the weirdo losers.  That guy who had the nerve to challenge Pelosi was a real dingus.  Cenk Uygur was a real dingus.  And the candidates who do make it in, like AOC/Omar/Tlaib, don't exactly inspire confidence.  Get better candidates.

[darklordoftech]

If Cisneros is “not a Democrat”, what does being a Democrat mean?

[pikachu]

I keep reading this, but when they do, they get called “purity testers”, “not Democrats”, “unwilling to work with others”, etc., and Progressives mostly failed to win anything downballot in 2018 and have completely failed so far in 2020.

Run in open seats. It's only purity testing when you run against an effective incumbent in a primary. There are at many open Democratic-held seats every cycle.

Meh, if you learn from the right did, it succeeded in moving the party right by launching credible challenges to incumbents. Either, (a) the insurgent wins or (b) you pressure them enough that they'll move more to your side. Waiting for open seats which pretty much never open up might be more amenable, but it also doesn't do anything to move the party closer to wear you want. And ultimately tbh, if your insurgent movement is worried about what the establishment is going to say about purity tests and being not Democrats, then why even bother trying?

e: Someone like Cuellar, for example, would be an idiot if he doesn't start trying to repair his relationships with liberal groups in the next two years.

[Zaybay]

It should be noted that the strategy of "Progressives challenging and focusing on downballot races" has borne a lot of fruit. The DSA, for example, controls 1/10 of the Chicago aldermen, a good amount of state representatives and senators, and even two additional house members in the form of AOC and Tliab.

Getting Sanders to the top of the ticket likely would have caused such a change to occur faster, but these kind of victories do help to grow a bench that can run for office and continue the leftward movement in the Democratic Party.

[MarkD]

No, progressives should ask themselves who do they want, now, to appoint Supreme Court Justices? That's what I think about every four years, no matter how disappointed I may be in who my party nominated.

[We Live in Black and White]

And the candidates who do make it in, like AOC/Omar/Tlaib, don't exactly inspire confidence.

You sound more like a Main Street Partnership Republican every day!