If Haley Stevens defeats Any Levin on Tuesday....

[brooklynite]

Will OUR REVOLUTION take the hint and start focusing its attention on, say, Republicans?

[W_HAMILTON]

1. She will and they won't.

As I just said in another post, those on the "far left" should take a page out of Fetterman's book and spend their time attacking Republicans rather than going after good Democrats. Attacking Democrats that you can't beat on your own merits only hurts progressive causes as a whole. Fetterman is doing incredibly well in what is basically a swing state and one of the reasons why is that he hasn't split those on the left by creating enemies when the only enemies we need to worry about right now are the FUCKING REPUBLICANS.

[PortTack]

2. ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. +++++

[dpibel]

3. One race?

So this race determines what OUR REVOLUTION should do everywhere?

I'm thinking you believe this race is a slam dunk for Haley Stevens.

Else you would not be making this the breaking point for progressives versus whatever you are.

Just out of curiosity: If Andy (or, as you style it, "Any" ) Levin defeats Haley Stevens, what will be your big message?

[brooklynite]

8. Let's review their record...

Jessica Cisneros lost to Henry Cuellar
Mike Ortega lost to Lou Correa
Nina Turner lost to Shontel Brown
Jumaane Williams lost to Kathy Hochul
India Walton lost to Byron Brown
Diane Morales lost to Eric Adams

Shall I comt8mue?

[dsc]

9. This isn't the same thing

Both Levin and Stevens are sitting members of Congress who got drawn into the same seat. I am not familiar with Ortega v Correa or Walton v Brown but the rest are standard races not races featuring two incumbents. I will say that I had no problem with any of the others in terms of running for office here. Turner challenged Brown when neither were incumbents (and ran again two year later), Hochul is an accidental governor and I fail to see why she should be considered immune from challenge, Adams wasn't an incumbent either. As to Cisneros v Cuellar, Cuellar is not only a Congressman with out of the mainstream positions he literally is the subject of an FBI probe. It would have been political malpractice for no one to challenge him in the primary. Frankly if he gets indicted we are screwed.

[brooklynite]

10. I can add many more...

The point is that OR endorses the the left-most Democrat against the mainstream Democrat, but then never seems to endorse the mainstream Democrat against the Republican.

[Srkdqltr]

6. The sad thing is Levin and Steven's have to go against each other

I have not seen an attack add against Levin but have seen them against Stevens.
I think I would prefer Stevens as she has more visibility.
Levin comes from a politically famous family.
Shame they had to run against each other.

[karynnj]

7. AIPAC has been attacking Levin, but will they actually support Stevens?

[Ohio Joe]

11. Are you advocating for the end to primaries?

Or just certain people being allowed to run in them?

I say let anyone challenge and let the people decide.

[brooklynite]

12. No I'm advocating in favor of getting Democrats ELECTED

OUR REVOLUTION seems to always go after Mainstream Democrats as being in the pocket of corporate interests, rather than focusing on the merits of the candidates they’ve selected, and when the Mainstream Democrats win, OR doesn’t seem to see them as a better choice than the Republican alternatives.

[Ohio Joe]

13. So... Only who you consider mainstream Democrats should be allowed to run...

More liberal candidates will run against more center candidates in primaries... And the other way around. It's why we have primaries, so people can choose the candidate that best suits what they find important.

I still say let the people decide.

[brooklynite]

14. when did I say anything about who should run?

I’m discussing OUR REVOLUTION’s strategy of campaigning.

[Ohio Joe]

15. In a primary, the candidate runs on why they best represent you for that party...

The conversation in primarily focused on the opponent in the primary... That is how they almost all run. If you are focusing on the Reagan idea of not speaking ill of anyone in the party, why single out one wing when all are guilty of the same thing?

[brooklynite]

23. My point was: beating up in the opposition doesn't seem to be working for them..

…and certainly doesn’t help win in November.

[Ohio Joe]

26. I've seen the same said in primaries my whole life...

Well... My whole political life

I get that point but... Again, it is something that is/has been done by all wings of all parties. It's not something that will go away, it's part of the primary system and I find that singling out one wing when all do the same to be just as unhelpful. I would suggest it at least be a general statement.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

16. Less liberal, more leftist.

Get that correct.

[Ohio Joe]

17. And your definition of each is?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

18. Nothing to do with "my" definition

as there are well-established political science understandings of liberalism as a political ideology that make ot distinct from more leftist political ideologies such as socialism or democratic socialism.

Best not to conflate the two.

[Ohio Joe]

19. With no definition, I must ignore your distinction

At varying times, I've been told I'm a center Dem, a liberal and a leftist so... If someone is going to throw out the terms but not define them, I cannot worry about it.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

20. Fine by me. Liberalism and Democratic socialism are quite distinct political philosophies.

It isn't intellectually honest to conflate them.

[Ohio Joe]

21. If you did not struggle so hard to not define them, I might buy into that...

But I am not a political science major and it seems intellectually dishonest to throw out terms that are often used interchangeably and refuse to define them.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

22. I was a political science major and know that political philosophies don't

fit neatly into one line definitions.

Just because terms are used incorrectly (and often with an agenda behind that conflation) doesn't excuse the intellectual dishonesty.

Many of the leaders of Our Revolution have made it quite plain that they are not "liberals" (or Democrats).

Liberalism and Democratic socialism are very distinct ideologies.

Words have meanings and if they are blurred by "re-framing," then communication becomes difficult.

[Ohio Joe]

24. I see... It's dishonest to ask for a definition...

And fine to accuse someone of "intellectual dishonesty" because my use does not fit your undefined definition.

I understand

[Just A Box Of Rain]

25. No, you are asking for a simple answer to a long question

about political ideologies that I think ought to be well understood by people who follow politics.

[Ohio Joe]

27. Ahhh... I don't meet your standards...

I'll stop following politics

[Just A Box Of Rain]

28. You might at least do a serious study of how liberalism and democratic socialism/socialism

are quite distinct political ideologies.

That's pretty basic stuff.

[Ohio Joe]

29. Very basic...

It just requires serious study and cannot be answered simply. Got it

[Just A Box Of Rain]

30. Yes, very basic.

But a requires more detail that fits in a typical DU post.

Liberalism =/= democratic socialism