General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Democrats used to stand for principles [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)If everyone in his "grass roots support" had given ten bucks towards his candidacy, and he amassed a huge war chest, the "Powers That Be" in the state party system couldn't ignore him.
Being Number Two in the leadership doesn't automatically give one the crown--look at MA. Charlie Baker (who was a LT GOV who ran and was rejected once before) was only able to become governor by being male, and beating a far more capable but less charismatic woman (MA has never had a female governor 'in her own right' -- we had one for a short period of time when the male incumbent left to take an ambassadorship) AND by having deep, deep pockets from his friends in the business community.
The things you are complaining about--candidates stumping for other candidates, polling place issues--are separate from the fact that your candidate didn't prevail.
Your candidate didn't prevail because he lacked a couple of things--"clout," and MONEY. He couldn't demonstrate to the leadership that he "owned" his voters, and he needed to do that. You're blaming the party for "snuffing out" his support, and I'm telling you that if his support was demon$trated $ufficiently through a PAC that he controlled, he'd get a LOT more RE$PECT.
It's the way it is. I am not saying it is optimal or desirable, but the only way to change it is to be in power in a decisive way.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)