just watch. AOC is going to go on a reclamation tour and try to veer to the center to appeal to a wider audience when she tries to mount a run for president in 2028. Don’t be fooled. The farce is strong in this one.
I would note that Francesca Hong herself graciously conceded the race at 2:00 am Wednesday. Although she was close enough to demand a recount she chose not to do so and attended a unity rally with David Crowley on Wednesday.
I commend her for these acts.
These facts have been horrifically unreported in a media hell-bent on a Dems in Disarray narrative. On Wednesday, I looked in all the usual national outlets for an answer to the question “Has Hong conceded” and could not find it there. It took a Google search to bring me the answer in local media. Eventually the word got out.
I see no reason to continue the good v. evil arguments. I respect the will of the primary voters and support the winner. I did it for Platner in Maine until the accusations got to be too much to ignore. I did it for El Sayed in Michigan. I do it for David Crowley in Wisconsin. I did it when Bernie Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.
I see no other way to successfully exist in this fractious Democratic Party.
I do agree with John Judis’ dispassionate analysis of the outcome. He isn’t gloating.
I don’t agree with James Carville’s outrageous shrinking of the tent.
Woke 1? Seriously. The Nazi Party will have a field day with that. No one wants to defund the police. We want to remove the criminal element from the police. No one wants to defund ICE. We do want to defund what ICE has become which is Insane Clown's ethnic cleansing goon squad who answer to self hating Jew Nazi Ratface Miller's quotas. AOC is not ready for prime time. Francesca Hong never made it that far.
As another rank-and-file longstanding DSA member, who is at-large, I agree DSA should ditch it’s so -called "platform". DSA is not a party and should stop acting like one. DSA should be a big tent organization of hundreds of thousands of democratic socialists, with a range of views consistent with DSA’s Statement of Purpose.
Its members have never been expected to agree with all of the resolutions passed at conventions, although there is now a push for a 2027 resolution that would discipline members who run for office or refuse to end their campaign, when DSA endorses another candidate. Would the next step be to discipline or expel members who work for a candidate endorsed by their union, for instance, on the grounds DSA endorsed someone else?
DSA members should be encouraged to run for office and seek support from DSAers, and progressive candidates should be invited to speak at DSA meetings or DSA sponsored or co-sponsored candidate forums.
But I am not convinced it should even endorse candidates. Should of endorsement, it could do what some, but not enough, DSAers did in 2024, work to defeat MAGA by engaging in voter registration work and support for candidates through our unions, professional associations, issue groups, local Democratic clubs, and the Working Families Party. Some object this doesn’t “build the party,” by which they mean DSA. Again, DSA is not a party, and the movement it tries to act like one, it will become politically marginalized.
Most of do or should belong to unions, professional associations, and issue-oriented groups like Sunrise or SURJ and various constituency-based advocacy groups, who often have an electoral arm or candidate endorsement process. They often support candidates or liberal candidates running in areas where a DSA candidate would have no hope of winning. If our goal is to defeat MAGA and defend democracy, running a DSA candidate is not always a good idea.
The danger is DSA will start running more and more "cadre candidates" who are beholden not to the mass movements but to DSA's "platform" or the priorities of chapters or the national DSA NPC. That is not healthy. We do not have a parliamentary democracy, and we should stop pretending we do.
I would have voted for that Hong. That Hong had the ability to articulate ideas, but you are correct, not the experience, either politically or professionally, to govern.
Thankfully, there is growing support within DSA, from what I can see, to run only viable candidates. Hong was such a candidate, but electability is also a factor, especially when a governor’s seat or a US Senate seat is at state.
Under no circumstances should DSA try to run a “cadre candidate” as an independent or on some third-party slate, in an attempt to make a political point or be a spoiler. And when we lose a primary, we must wholeheartedly support the winner! The failure of too many DSAers to do that in 2016 and 2024 is one reason the nation is in the situation it is today.
So basically what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that electability comes down to did or didn't you win?
I can't tell if that's a sincerely jaded or earnest take.
Either way, the argument I would make is despite whatever electability concerns, as articulated by the writer (which I think are contested because of the political "common sense" they originate in) Hong only last by half a percentage point. Running as a socialist, who has tweeted heterodox ideas. That me says we should reexamine what electability is and isn't--in a Democratic Party where electability has become, and has been for a few decades, narrative over substance, to be trite.
This is a shallow analysis, which doesn't look at AOC's full statement, and ignores the neoliberal takeover of Democratic electeds at the national level (and their support structure of the DCCC, consultants, etc.). The race was won/lost by only 3,000 votes! While I agree that Fowler is the vastly preferrable candidate, minimizing the margins here in favor of a predetermined analysis is voluntarily entering an epistemic bubble.
Couple comments there's a difference between the performative wokeness of most elected officials and the riots on the streets in 2020. One reacts to the political terrain it finds itself in, the latter attempts to reshape it.
Considering that Hong lost by what 3,000 or so votes, half a percent, in a primary that doubled the number of votes that were in the Republican primary, there's much more fertile analysis to be had than "voters are stupid".
Alright, so if I spot you you're presumptions--she was widely considered to be unelectable, and a major factor in the votes for her opponent was based on that.
To you, what does that say about the people who voted for her?
just watch. AOC is going to go on a reclamation tour and try to veer to the center to appeal to a wider audience when she tries to mount a run for president in 2028. Don’t be fooled. The farce is strong in this one.
I would note that Francesca Hong herself graciously conceded the race at 2:00 am Wednesday. Although she was close enough to demand a recount she chose not to do so and attended a unity rally with David Crowley on Wednesday.
I commend her for these acts.
These facts have been horrifically unreported in a media hell-bent on a Dems in Disarray narrative. On Wednesday, I looked in all the usual national outlets for an answer to the question “Has Hong conceded” and could not find it there. It took a Google search to bring me the answer in local media. Eventually the word got out.
I see no reason to continue the good v. evil arguments. I respect the will of the primary voters and support the winner. I did it for Platner in Maine until the accusations got to be too much to ignore. I did it for El Sayed in Michigan. I do it for David Crowley in Wisconsin. I did it when Bernie Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.
I see no other way to successfully exist in this fractious Democratic Party.
I do agree with John Judis’ dispassionate analysis of the outcome. He isn’t gloating.
I don’t agree with James Carville’s outrageous shrinking of the tent.
I agree.
Woke 1? Seriously. The Nazi Party will have a field day with that. No one wants to defund the police. We want to remove the criminal element from the police. No one wants to defund ICE. We do want to defund what ICE has become which is Insane Clown's ethnic cleansing goon squad who answer to self hating Jew Nazi Ratface Miller's quotas. AOC is not ready for prime time. Francesca Hong never made it that far.
As another rank-and-file longstanding DSA member, who is at-large, I agree DSA should ditch it’s so -called "platform". DSA is not a party and should stop acting like one. DSA should be a big tent organization of hundreds of thousands of democratic socialists, with a range of views consistent with DSA’s Statement of Purpose.
Its members have never been expected to agree with all of the resolutions passed at conventions, although there is now a push for a 2027 resolution that would discipline members who run for office or refuse to end their campaign, when DSA endorses another candidate. Would the next step be to discipline or expel members who work for a candidate endorsed by their union, for instance, on the grounds DSA endorsed someone else?
DSA members should be encouraged to run for office and seek support from DSAers, and progressive candidates should be invited to speak at DSA meetings or DSA sponsored or co-sponsored candidate forums.
But I am not convinced it should even endorse candidates. Should of endorsement, it could do what some, but not enough, DSAers did in 2024, work to defeat MAGA by engaging in voter registration work and support for candidates through our unions, professional associations, issue groups, local Democratic clubs, and the Working Families Party. Some object this doesn’t “build the party,” by which they mean DSA. Again, DSA is not a party, and the movement it tries to act like one, it will become politically marginalized.
Most of do or should belong to unions, professional associations, and issue-oriented groups like Sunrise or SURJ and various constituency-based advocacy groups, who often have an electoral arm or candidate endorsement process. They often support candidates or liberal candidates running in areas where a DSA candidate would have no hope of winning. If our goal is to defeat MAGA and defend democracy, running a DSA candidate is not always a good idea.
The danger is DSA will start running more and more "cadre candidates" who are beholden not to the mass movements but to DSA's "platform" or the priorities of chapters or the national DSA NPC. That is not healthy. We do not have a parliamentary democracy, and we should stop pretending we do.
As for Hong, the question is which Hong? Was it the Hong whose interview appeared in In These Times? https://inthesetimes.com/article/francesca-hong-democratic-socialism-wisconsin?source=Newsletter-081526&link_id=6&can_id=c64b06b4aaf3894ef862866152e76590&email_referrer=email_3360152&email_subject=months-without-running-water-in-america&
I would have voted for that Hong. That Hong had the ability to articulate ideas, but you are correct, not the experience, either politically or professionally, to govern.
Thankfully, there is growing support within DSA, from what I can see, to run only viable candidates. Hong was such a candidate, but electability is also a factor, especially when a governor’s seat or a US Senate seat is at state.
Under no circumstances should DSA try to run a “cadre candidate” as an independent or on some third-party slate, in an attempt to make a political point or be a spoiler. And when we lose a primary, we must wholeheartedly support the winner! The failure of too many DSAers to do that in 2016 and 2024 is one reason the nation is in the situation it is today.
So basically what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that electability comes down to did or didn't you win?
I can't tell if that's a sincerely jaded or earnest take.
Either way, the argument I would make is despite whatever electability concerns, as articulated by the writer (which I think are contested because of the political "common sense" they originate in) Hong only last by half a percentage point. Running as a socialist, who has tweeted heterodox ideas. That me says we should reexamine what electability is and isn't--in a Democratic Party where electability has become, and has been for a few decades, narrative over substance, to be trite.
Gee, when did Democrats start thinking like right-wing shitstains like Ben Shapiro and Tim Pool?
Couldn't agree more. Someday DSA will understand that when you elect a politician they need to think politically not ideologically.
frankly shocked to discover you give money to DSA - thought you knew better by now
Strong thougtful piece. On Point re DSA.
This is a shallow analysis, which doesn't look at AOC's full statement, and ignores the neoliberal takeover of Democratic electeds at the national level (and their support structure of the DCCC, consultants, etc.). The race was won/lost by only 3,000 votes! While I agree that Fowler is the vastly preferrable candidate, minimizing the margins here in favor of a predetermined analysis is voluntarily entering an epistemic bubble.
Are you just figuring out that the DSA isn't about the European Social Democracy of your dreams, John?
Couple comments there's a difference between the performative wokeness of most elected officials and the riots on the streets in 2020. One reacts to the political terrain it finds itself in, the latter attempts to reshape it.
Considering that Hong lost by what 3,000 or so votes, half a percent, in a primary that doubled the number of votes that were in the Republican primary, there's much more fertile analysis to be had than "voters are stupid".
Hong was widely considered to be unelectable. Democratic primary voters organized and cut her off. How is that “stupid”?
Widely considered to be unelectable by whom?
She won 310,000 votes. Are those voters not also judges of "electability"?
Are they _competent_ judges? The majority didn't seem to think so.
Alright, so if I spot you you're presumptions--she was widely considered to be unelectable, and a major factor in the votes for her opponent was based on that.
To you, what does that say about the people who voted for her?
They probably didn't expect Trump to win, in either 2016 or 2024.
OTOH, there was a bunch of people--especially in 2024--that weren't all that surprised.
Agreed, and I'm pretty far left as a voter. Woke 1 was crazy, but reform is also badly needed.