Sheās AIPACS tool. She calls herself a ānonjewish zionistā. They hate for no reason whatsoever, based on ethnicity.
The parties reaction to this will be telling. Anything less than expulsion from the party is unacceptable. Her being the neoliberal establishment pick, even if she was clearly defeated. Makes me wonder if theyāre just going to try to burn it all down on the way out.
āCongresswoman Stevens is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future,ā Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel wrote on X Sunday.
Yes, I just read your post down below. Good news is so rare. This is something worth celebrating a little.
Iāve never heard of this woman. Is she still running to maintain her seat in this election?
Haley Stevens is in the House. She did not run for re-election, choosing instead to run for the MI senate seat. She lost that primary to El-Sayed.
She will still be in Congress from now until the new one is seated in January. After that, she has no known job and is not running for anything at the moment.
Thank God.
The bar is so low that Iām impressed Chuck even condemned it. I hope they at least censure her.
Wait, he did? Thatās low key shocking! As someone who likes working with them, its shocking that he spoke out against supporting them. Low bar indeed, but damn.
I imagine that Schumer and Jeffries are upset because it puts the spotlight on them for being publicly disloyal to Democrats that are not owned by AIPAC.
Haley Stevens is too dumb and gave away the game just like the Democratic ghoul James Carville did.
The DNC is an unfunded joke. There is an insurgent left wing coming up. This has all the makings of a dem civil war. Schumer and Jefferies are both AIPAC funded. I expect absolute and total shenanigans. Democrats will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
AFAIK parties in America straight up canāt expel their members or otherwise control their membership. It sounds dumb but itās the only way to make a two-party system even vaguely democratic.
Parties might not be able to purge voters from their membership, but at the very least, the Democratic Caucus can expel members by a 2/3 vote. Straight from their site, rule 1 on page 6 of the pdf they have embedded there. On the face of it, she should no longer be considered a member in good standing, and should be expelled from the Democratic Caucus as a result.
In order to maintain membership in good standing, Members shall not participate in campaign activities for any candidate in a partisan federal election who is not a Member of the Democratic Party.
I kind of figured there had to be a way for parties to prevent just anyone from running under their party, or the Republicans would have ran deliberately terrible candidates as Democrats in races to try and rig things long ago, by this stage.
To your second point: The centrists are already as terrible as they can realistically be and still win primaries (and they usually lose them anyway when progressives get serious), so that niche is already filled. Thereās no point in running terrible candidates when theyāre either going to lose their primaries or be Chuck Schumer clones.
Eh, I wouldnāt put it past them to run someone and keep handlers on them at all times to win the primary, and then let them loose on their own during the general election, if such a thing were feasible. The one thing I have confidence in the GOP to do, besides line their pockets, is any dirty trick they think they can get away with, no matter how crazy a scheme is involved, if itāll let them get ahead and cement their own power. Besides, there was a point where those centrists certainly did play better with the general population than anyone even accused of being a socialist not all that long ago, and I donāt think the GOP of the time had much in the way of moral scruples back then, either.
Thatās theoretically possible, but thereās a limit to how well people can repeatedly lie about their core beliefs. Also itās not as if progressives arenāt watching out for stuff like that; most potential plants will have some kind of history that can be inspected to ascertain their intentions, and large-scale conspiracies have a tendency to leak. Itās not impossible (see: Fetterman), but the noteworthiness of Fetterman should tell you how hard it is to pull this kind of thing off, and even Fetterman had people warning about him during his campaign, not to mention he literally had a stroke. So basically the GOP doesnāt do this sort of thing more/at all because itās really hard to pull off and would have diminishing returns as people wisen up (again the progressive attitude post-Fetterman is informative). They probably have better (meaning worse) things to be doing.
Iām kinda scratching my head over his statement but the party system in the US is weird. States have their own parties.
It IS entirely possible she never registered with the Michigan Party, and was backed by the DNC exclusively. The DNC has way more money and can get candidates to Primary quite easily.
Wait, sheās not Jewish??
I say this as a Jewish anti-zionist: what the actual fuck?? Likeā¦ I grew up indoctrinated into zionism and left when I got old enough to start paying attention to news. Soā¦ whatās her damage?
Maybe this sounds silly, but I have a lot of pity for Jewish liberal zionists. Itās a cult. And Iām familiar with Christian Nationalist zionists (also a cult, but different one). I feel sympathy for people operating on childhood brainwashing.
And I kind of get folks like Biden, who probably formed an opinion before '67.
But whatās her fucking deal? I can have grace for people who were born into this or are really old, but she just sounds like she learned that Israel is an apartheid state in college and said, āNeato!ā
I am so much more disgusted with her now than I was when I assumed that she was a member of the tribe. ULGH.
Apparently her fiancƩ is Jewish.
Fellow Jewish anti Zionist here. The answer is easyā¦ AIPAC money. She could be an apocalypse seeking Nat-C, but most likely just the cash.
I donāt buy it.
You can find countless politicians ā most of the Democratic party ā who have learned how to support Israel in 2026: you promise in a closed door meeting to guarantee funding for Likud, never bring up Israel unprompted, and if asked, talk about how terrible Netanyahuās leadership has been for Jewish security. And then you launder the cash as hard as you can and hope no one notices.
Most AIPAC candidates donāt talk about Israel these days. AIPAC is well known for running ads on whatever topic seems most likely to hurt their critics without talking about Israel.
I think Stevenson started from a place of being a pro-imperialist nat sec ghoul, but now is just having a public mental breakdown, tbh.
Thereās also the possibility sheās just not very bright.
By all accounts sheās not too bright AND being pressured by her Zionist fiancĆ©e to toe the party line.
Youāre absolutely right that AIPAC has become very unpopular in some circles and āsmartā democrats owned by them keep their mouths shut for the most part.
Man, centrist Democrats and leadership showing when the chips are down, thereās progressives on the field, they cuddle up with Republicans.
Maybe you canāt read?
The entire story is āOne asshole has been rebuked by the left and center of her partyā and you somehow twisted that into āAll democrats are bad?ā
Either learn to read or stop posting.
Theyāre alluding to the fact that when it comes down to it, corporate dems would endorse and support republicans over progressives because they have the same backers. This isnāt one asshole, this is part of a larger trend. Historically. When the choice is between fascism and leftist/even just progressive politics, corporate ācentristā dems will get in bed with fascists before they will support real change. Because real change hurts the bottom line or the most powerful (read: rich).
Thank you.
I upvoted your gratitude comment, Iām not a huge commenter but Iāve done similar. Thereās so much decisiveness and bickering from miscommunication and misunderstanding that itās nice seeing when people support each other through it.
Be the change youād like to see.
The entire Democratic party stood up and said NO here. IDK what the fuck you people expect, but you have no idea what the fuck youāre talking about.
deleted by creator
The same party that didnāt try to lay into Cuomo for running as a spoiler candidate, that didnāt back Madamni for a mayoral position of one of the biggest cities in the USA. The same that has also ran attack ads in this same race to just not vote at all despite blue no matter who. Man, the hypocrisy amongst the Democrat establishment and their supporters are striking and damning as hell.
We kicked her out of the party within a couple of hours.
And her name is Haley Stephens, since you guys are such fucking experts on everything.
This is after months of centrist dems participating in the Islamophobic attack against AES started by the Republicans.
So does the republican party have a load of sleeper agents in the democratic party that it activates when needed?
Itās not Republicans, itās Israel and itās both parties. Israel is worried because the progressive candidates have a real chance this election and are performing on not spending billions on Israel as well as health and wealth reform.
Is the Democratic Party fundamentally a right-wing party?
Yes. The original meaning of left wing and right wing were the radical and conservative wings of the French parliament; the former being for liberalism, the later for monarchism. It has since kept its same meaning, progression or regression.
The DNCās official party stances are objectively regression. Progression, at this stage of socioeconomic development for the US, would be socialism. Actually itād just be social capitalism since we have the worst social safety net of all advanced economies in world history, but given the partyās opposition to medicare for all, it cannot even manage that.
The left wing starts at anti-capitalism in all places with established capitalist markets.
No. AIPAC mostly funds Democrats, who are neoliberal. So we only have two right wing parties. There isnāt anyone to āactivateā. Corporate Dems believe in business interests as a priority and that is how they behave.
Yes, but also thereās plenty of Democrat bigots. A lot of them are ācentristā and/or āmoderate.ā
Yes. Tricia Cotham in NC. She got elected to state level seat as a Democrat and switched parties. And voted opposite what she promised. Then NC GOP gerrymandered again.
No. Itās not that she was a āsecret republicanā itās that there isnāt a difference when it comes to supporting Israel, or being owned by a Capitalist. Sure maybe she doesnāt think gay-people should be burned at the stake. But she is absolutely in support of public-private markets, which is the only thing that capitalists give a fuck about. No one is getting paid to be a bigot, but if they were, people like Stevenās would absolutely be trying to get in on that.
Judging by the number of times enough Dems voted with Republicans when they had a chance to actually accomplish something, it certainly seems so from outside the usa
Anyone āstunnedā by corporate Democrats being DINOs isnāt paying attention.
Even the dems are sick of her shit - they kicked her out of the party right before she made this endorsement.
Oh shit, I thought it was after
From what I read, the announcement was after but the actual kicking-out was right before.
Weird, if thatās the case Iām curious as to why she was kicked out. Though everything Iām seeing is implying that endorsing Rogers was the final straw
It seems to have coincided with El-Sayed uninviting her from a campaign appearance on Sunday, after which she appears to have then decided to go endorse Rogers instead. Someone else linked an article in this comment section where they reached out to the mich. dems right after the sunday endorsement and itās they had already kicked her out, so either they got to it crazy promptly or theyād ousted her amid all the outright hostility between her and El-Sayed.
(Sorry if thatās badly worded, I am still super hungover pls be kind)
Makes sense lol. It did seem really quick so your story did track, I just also could see it being the final straw and a very quick process because it was foreseen, and was trying to figure it out
Good luck with the hangover!
Yeah, my inner gossip hopes we get more details but eeh Iām sure there will be far more chaos to distract us.
And thank you! Liquid-IV to the rescueā¦
Ahh, spiteful bitch syndrome
Exactly. Schumer ā the epitome of a corporate Dem ā supported Stevens in the primary, and today is calling her flip a ādespicable betrayal,ā but until today his support for El-Sayed as the Dem candidate has only ever been unenthusiastic at best.
I mean thatās fairly honest from him. He doesnāt like the idea of the party moving left, but he knows itās better then republicans destroying us all with their gigafascist tilt. Today he also said he was in support of AES, in response to the Stevens situation.
Today he also said he was in support of AES
After Stevensā open defection he had no choice. If he doesnāt, he gets outed too, because he supported her so strongly in the primary.
Or to put it another way, she put a shiv in El-Sayedās back, sure, but it could be argued that it was a much bigger shiv in Schumerās back.
El-Sayed is surrounded by enemies of all kinds who are united in keeping the status quo unchanged. Schumer is not, and willingly brought the weight and power of his own position to help Stevens.
In the end Stevens is just more water off the back of El-Sayed, who is making his own way regardless of all those coming at him, always has, and he was not thrown off his own course in the slightest. On the other hand, Schumer is struggling in a number of ways.
So it begs the question: who bears the greater betrayal? It would have been very odd if Schumer had not vocally supported El-Sayed today. He may well need that favor back in days to come.
If youāre ever in a leftist space and you hear: āScratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.ā
This is what we mean.
That doesnāt make any sense though, because the vast majority of politicians condemning her are liberals.
I donāt see how this URL is a response, but the site implies a conspiracy while also listing Democrats who āRarely Rotateā, which seems to betray the whole premise of the conspiracy theory. Isnāt it a more likely explanation that some Democrats simply lean more conservative or vote based on their constituents? I mean, Marie Perez is literally a co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition and competes in a district that went red in 2024.
The point is theres always just enough who vote with the obvious fascists so the agenda passes. Or just enough who go against the blue team so their agenda fails. Almost like itās planned opposition. āLook guys, we tried to stop them, oopsies weāre so helpless! How could we know that exactly 3 people in our bloc from the safest blue districts would go against us?ā
Itās seemingly every damn time there is a major policy fight. What immediately comes to mind is the last shutdown. Performative at best. The Dems had public support, but then people in safe districts just gave in.
Yet when a progressive runs or has support then the party finds their spine to undermine them.
Itās because āliberals speaking out against herā doesnāt mean anything when she is doing this for Israel. She is criticized by Chuck Schumer, who has stated that he is in his position to āsupport Israelā.
And a historical account of neoliberal voting records is not a āconspiracy theoryā
WWE wrestling was the simplest pageantry that had āheroesā and āheelsā and the rubes in the audience think it is all real. These terms are even used when people are on corporate media. People are assigned to be the conservative/liberal āheelā.
There is nothing new about rotating villains, and controlled opposition. Maybe learn something before you start running your ignorant mouth when answers are provided to you.
Until they get scratched.
Oh OK.
I get the saying, but if you piss off anybody you disagree with enough, theyāre gonna hate you. I had a discussion with a friend about this very saying the other day. It also reeks of No True Scotsman.
The problem with this idiom is that it essentially just says thereās no such thing as [liberals], and that everybody but [True Scotsmen] are [not fascists], which is just absolutely not true.
It essentially leaves zero space for anybody to disagree with you, ever. Since as soon as they do, they should be treated as fascists, which is implied to be the absolute evil.
Which, okay, if thatās how you really feel, then thatās great for you, but then anybody who feels even remotely different is gonna see how absolutely tyrannical you are and move away. This is the exact attitude why people feel communists are either fucking dumb and annoying, or are actively right wing agents acting as a smear campaign against communism and leftism in general.
So, to conclude:
A) itās not true
B) itās not effective
C) itās problematic as hell
D) itās often outright counterproductive
You could just easily say like āwhy the fuck are so many moderate dems so shitty when it comes down to it?ā I know you want to differentiate yourself from them as much as possible. And realistically, a LOT of people know and agree with you. But this is still not the way.
I can concede the sentiment sure. Iām sure there are well meaning liberals but there is a certain point when pressed where they either move left to resist growing fascism, or they become Haley Stevens. Fence sitting only gets people so far.
For most people, theyāre along for the ride, and out of fear or whatever reason, cannot act. Challenging them by equating them to fascists is such a risky strategy. It OFTEN goes the wrong way. I do not have a good solution, but I do know and am concerned over the risks.
Sure and to the average voter that statement doesnāt really apply the āaverage voterā also isnāt going to find themselves on Lemmy. I imagine to be frank the āaverage voterā thinks libs and the left are the same thing. To liberal POLITICIANS - It absolutely does. As for why I bring it up here, Lemmy, yes even .world has a left bent, people will be exposed to the saying on Lemmy itās important to call it out when it happens.
No you just donāt know how politics works. Liberals and Fascists are ideologically alligned on most things. Liberals are just more into trying to whitewash their atrocities and use legalism as a shield. Fascism is just the final form of liberalism once all the fake smiles are gone. Thereās PLENTY of ideologies that arenāt fascist. Liberalism and Fascism both fall into the category of corporatocracy. Rule via Corporations. and the wider category of capitalism. They are both right wing ideologies. Both anti-communist. etc. They have a LOT in common.
Omg people using legalism as a shield is so dumbā¦
Okay so, I do understand how the values differ. But I also know how being a dick to people makes them feel. It basically never wins them over. People put up their walls super fast as soon as they sense an agenda or hate. And yes, people can intuit hate in text over the internet.
So like when you start off your response to my consideration of an idiom with āno you just donāt understand how politics worksā you sound like a child. Youāre also entirely missing my point. I KNOW that fascism and capitalism are neighbors. I know that VERY well. Thereās literally no need to condescend at me over this. Youāre wasting your energy trying to explain to me this stuff because youāre preaching to the choir.
Your goal is to convince those people to rethink what theyāre doing. And what YOUāRE doing is basically going āi am so smart and youāre a fascistā and then attacking them. Thatās stupid as hell, and if anyone, you are the one that doesnāt understand how people work in systems where they believe they are free. Your strategy works when people are afraid of disagreeing with authority - which āliberalsā are very much not. Liberals are afraid of disagreeing with money since they put it on a pedestal. So if you want to win those hearts, you have to speak their language and explain to them why that philosophy is bad.
For example: āmoney isnāt everything, and morality is importantā will get responded to with ābut I have to pay the billsā which you could respond with āwhat about all the harm youāre doing by your inaction which results in the companies and rich growing in power by YOUR SUBMISSION and executing atrocities?ā Which then gets the real conversation started.
Saying you are a fascist and telling people how close capitalists are to Nazis is a waste of time and everybodyās walls going up and nothing changing, itās a literal losing strategy, no matter if itās true or not.
aw, did i hurt your feelings?
ā¦ What? No? Not even remotely. Though your super hostile questioning of that is, in itself pretty worrying. I mean no offense and am literally trying to break bread with you. Though if you continueā¦ whatever this is, this conversation may end.
What a bizarre turn of attitudeā¦ maybe you think Iām acting out at you? If Iāve said something to offend you, I apologize, it wasnāt my intent. Though, maybe it wasnāt a turn of attitude at all?
But yeah, literally ā¦Um, what? Maybe youāre trying to troll somebody else? Freudian mask slip? My feelings are not hurt, my day is not ruined, who are you, again?
Youāre complaining about my tone and projecting your goals on to me. I am not trying to āconvertā liberals. Itās annoying when you seem to think you know what Iām trying to do and tell me how Iām doing it wrong. When in reality we have entirely different goals. And we donāt agree on this stuff. Capitalism and fascism are not āneighborsā theyāre the same fucking thing. Thatās the entire point I was making earlier.
Your goal is to convince those people to rethink what theyāre doing.
Not it isnāt. When I make a comment under someone I think is wrong I am not trying to change their mind. I am simply stating for anyone else who might also disagree with them that they are not alone in that. I have no interest in recruiting and allying with liberals. Thatās just silly. Might as well try explaining to a Nazi why they shouldnāt be a Nazi.
I am literally telling liberals that I think theyāre disgusting Nazi apologists. Why would I want to convert those people to my side?
So, Iāll admit maybe I was too dissmissive to you, and that I just sent that as a digital middle finger after reading you complaining about my tone without bothering to read the rest of what you said. I donāt agree with you though, and we donāt share the same goals or views. Iām not going to spend 2 hours laying out all the things I think but I can tell weāre quite different in how we see things. Like I said tho Iām not interested in changing your mind. So you keep on trying to make liberals see the light. As unfun as that soundsā¦
Your goal is to convince those people to rethink what theyāre doing.
Not it isnāt. When I make a comment under someone I think is wrong I am not trying to change their mind. I am simply stating for anyone else who might also disagree with them that they are not alone in that. I have no interest in recruiting and allying with liberals
Have you considered that making them rethink what there are doing didnāt need to recruit them? In terms of strategy against the enemy, sowing seeds of doubt, mistrust, concern, alarm, is a time and battle tested strategy to weaken them.
The advice you are so against didnāt suggest you turn them into an ally, they can be tools to make it harder for the enemy to act in unison, which makes your true goals easier to achieve.
Seems like you are actively avoiding listening to a methodology that you would benefit from.
Just an opinion based on this exchange.
Lol, a smidge more complicated than that
Zionists are fascists, how is that more complicated?
Not sure how that disproves my point other than that sheās a Lib bought and paid for like Schumer, who then got scratched and went mask off.
What the hell do you think liberal means? Mist leftists are liberals.
She does Democrat stuff in most of her policies, but she also has large donations from aipac, is converting to Judaism through marriage and she also lost to Abdul in 2019, I think. They never liked each other and sheās petty for letting that get in the way of working for the people like Abdul says he will.
Sheās a grifter securing her new grift.
Fun fact: you can convert to Judaism without becoming a racist and supporting genocide and selling out your party and ideology.
Just painting a picture of her possible mineset
And I for one appreciate the insight.
Sure but if you are marrying a republican, it certainly helps.
Fetterman 2.0 minus the stroke but double the Israel support.
At least sheās out of office in 3 months. We have Fetterman for 2 more years in PA.
Seems like a lot of people in power or seeking power are there to make sure Israel continues to get American taxpayer money, endless weapons, legal immunity and the willingness to go to send American troops to die for Israel.
Stevens voice Israel comes to me in my dreams!
deleted by creator
Shocked? I can understand heartbroken but shocked? Really?
Didnāt see that coming a million miles away like a lot of us more left leaning and progressives did?
Maybe you guys should find a new profession then if you were shocked because you kind of suck at it.
One or the other makes a lot more sense than both.
It is odd seeing someone do political self immolation for no reason at all. Iām starting to think Haley isnāt the brightest bulb in the pack.
The reason is obvious. She is falling on the sword to save Israel. The last 2 years may have done irreparable damage to my view on Israel. I donāt think I will ever vote for a candidate who takes aipac money or supports Israel for the rest of my life.
Itās either money or blackmail. Thatās what it is for most of those out there making questionable decisions that go against what is right and good. There is lots of money and lots of blackmail currently floating around right now.
She appears to have united the party.
Do they have something on her? Iāve never seen something like this before.
She has an abusive husband who berated her in public for disappointing āthem.ā
Incredible. From what I understand, sheās only been with this āfianceeā for 7 months, and this makes him seem more like a Handler than a fiancee. Is this a Mossad Honeypot situation?
Yeah, definitely walks and talks like a handler. Honestly she looked under duress in that CNN interview.
Not husband, fiancee, and theyāve not been together a full year yet. He says heās a democrat, but has donated to Republicans as well (Susan Collins just last year, to name one, and it was over 24k).
āeveryone is disappointed in youā is very much a mossad move
How so?
No. Sheās never been the sharpest bulb.
I like this. Sharpest tool. Brightest bulb.
I call myself a rocket surgeon. I neither work on rockets nor engage in neurosurgery.
(graphic stolen somewhere years ago.)
Sheās dumber than a 2nd coat of paint.
A perfect recruit for an AIPAC democrat.
Sheās gonna be an aipac lobbyist after this. These people donāt do a goddamn thing if there isnāt a lot of money coming there way
We need to replace all the liberal democrats in our government with left leaning/DSA.
The people demand a party that will actually represent the working poor in this country, unapologetically, vehemently, with teeth, against corporations.
In a country full of magatards? Gl hf
We will not be swayed by naysayers.
The time for doubt and debate are over.
The truth is what it is.
The working poor need real representation.
The people who are currently talking about voting for AOC to own the mainstream Republicans? The people who think Mamdani is a conservative because he talks about helping working people? It would be a mistake to think that MAGA is ideologically consistent.
The state party officials need to expel her from the party. Even if it would only have a symbolic effect they need to make clear that this is unacceptable for anyone who calls themselves a Democrat. If moderates ask progressives to āvote blue no matter whoā and then turn around to endorse collaborators then they need to get the boot.
āCongresswoman Stevens is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future,ā Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel wrote on X Sunday.
āSenate Democrats are united in our support for Abdul El-Sayed, because we know he will fight for the economic interests of working families in Michigan, unlike Mike Rogers, who is a tool of Donald Trump and billionaire donors,ā [Chuck Schumer] said.
For once Schumer is 100% right.
This coming from Schumer is honestly almost as shocking as Stevens choosing to completely burn her bridges with the Democratic Party.
Schumer says whatever toady thing he needs to to keep his job.
My Chinese room theory of politics: I donāt actually care whether anyone truly believes what they say. Words speak louder than thoughts and actions speak louder than words. As long as someone is useful as an implement to enacting progressive policy priorities, successful at shepherding legislation, and campaigns for the election of progressives, or can be strong-armed into doing the above three, I could not care less whether they actually believe in what they say.
At the margin, sincere belief is still better. Which is to say, Schumer should still be replaced with an actual progressive/leftist/socialist at the earliest opportunity, regardless of how he tries to pivot to act like one. Iāll appreciate the cynical pivot in the interim, but thatās as far as it goes.
As much as I donāt like Schumer he is as lukewarm as it gets which can be both good and bad. He does actually care about American interests for the most part.
Already removed her from the Michigan Democratic leader website, too.
If moderates ask progressives to āvote blue no matter whoā
Worth saying that applies to the general only. Iām a progressive and I say: Vote progressive as far as you can. Always vote for the most progressive (or least regressive) candidate. In the general election, thatās gonna be blue over red. In the primary, thatās any progressive candidate. āBlue no matter whoā is just expressing the pragmatic general rule of thumb. I havenāt seen any exceptions to that - Iāve never seen a Republican that wasnāt more regressive than an establishment Democrat option.
Thank you, I wish more people understood this.
Fun fact: in the US, political parties canāt expel anyone from their party. Anyone can choose to join any party at any time.
This is partially true. State Parties do own party affiliation on a ballot. Many states have codified party affiliations so you can only run as Hitler (D) if you have won the State Democratic Party Primary. But if you donāt win the Primary, you can still appear on the Ballot, you just have to run as your own party, or (I) or whatever. You can certainly still call yourself a Democrat, or a Republican, or whatever, but how you will appear on the ballot wonāt be under the democrat ticket.
But if you donāt win the Primary, you can still appear on the Ballot
Yes, only one party member can proceed from the primary to the general. But thatās just the nature of the process. It doesnāt bestow the party any choice of candidates.
For the primary the Party can choose to disqualify a candidate from being able to run in the primary, but obviously that has to be done before the primary, once that happens itās too late and there is no mechanism to remove a candidate once the general ballot has been certified.
What OP said, but also parties in America donāt get to control their membership. Anyone can run as a candidate of any party if they can win the primary.
Quick bit of pedantry - they dont get to control state registration, which is not the same as membership in the local party.
I donāt see any way this is a politically coherent move for her. She just burnt her bridges with Leftist Democrats and corporate Democrats. She doesnāt have the look to be a talking head on conservative media. Michigan has early voting and many have already voted. Itās not like Republicans will respect her, but they use her for the moment.
Iāve seen some mentions of her Republican fiance effecting her, but she is a congressmen and has agency and ownership of her own endorsements. I am wondering if her mental stability is all there because Iām confused by her lack of coherency.
Agreed.
Tactically, if she wanted him to lose she shouldāve just stuck to what she was doing, which was supporting him in words while undermining and maintaining plausible deniability. Then if he loses, you can lament that there was just no saving a flawed candidate.
Now if he wins, sheās a loser twice over, and if he loses itās a phyric victory: sheās the villain who lost Democrats the seat, and instead of proving his politics canāt win in a swing state, the story is just that he got stabbed in the back by an ally.
I donāt see any way this is a politically coherent move for her.
By choosing to run for Senate, she isnāt running for re-election in the House. So sheās out in January either way. Sheās taking the AIPAC money sheās been getting for years already, and almost surely a lobbying position in exchange for trying to sabotage El-Sayed.
republicans masquerading as democrats. she isnāt the first.
I donāt see any way this is a politically coherent move for her.
The writing is on the wall. AIPAC is forever toxic for anyone with even a tiny amount of critical thinking skills. That only leaves the GOP and Zionist owned cable news shows as viable paid options.
Its the wrong move politically but the right move for AIPAC and that is all that matters for Mrs Israel comes with to me in my dreams.
Not corporate Dems. They will swing towards the money any which way it comes.
Schumer already said it was despicable. He is about as corporate dem as it gets. I would definitely say she burned those bridges.
He will bend back the AIPAC direction the moment people stop looking. Haley will be welcomed back as prodigal daughter the moment she is endorsed by them.
Nah, she is now too visisble a liability and would be a bigger problem than any benefit.
AIPAC will happily compensate her for her service, but will move on to less obviously controversial folks. They have no shortage of ācleanerā options, so they donāt have to be especially loyal to any particular Congress figure. She can be an example of being treated well on the way out.
I wonder what Jeffries thoughts are. Schumer has taken about 500k from aipac while Jeffries has taken over 1.5m. My guess is he wonāt say the quiet part out loud but Iāve been surprised before.
Jeffries spoke out against her too.
I donāt trust corporate dems anymore. They will literally give a peer permission to tank mildly progressive efforts and then performatively pretend to be upset by it.
They are better than the fucking Nazis on the other side of the aisle but the Democratic leadership are showing themselves to be just as disingenuous.
She is going to be an AIPAC lobbyist now
Looking at how cash flow is routed between them, AIPAC is the largest donor of the both of them that Iāve found. Not that AIPAC wants to spend money, but if it buys loyalty, thereās a possible connection to be found.
Clearly the person we all knew she was.
also bodes well for El Seyed being the man we hope he is
Good on them for taking a stand and following their conscience here. Anyone still working for her should be black listed from future Democrat campaigns and positions.
Canāt believe Stevens decided she wanted to go down in history for people to point at when they say some Democrats would rather lose elections than win by having a leftist, anti-Zionist win. Absolutely crazy she just went full mask off there.
