As a Kentuckian who's voted for Beshear for every office he's won, I am mortified by the idea of him as a national candidate. What I've accepted as a compromise in my very red state's office holders I'm not willing to accept as the best the party can do. He SHOULD be running for McConnell's senate seat because he'd be the only Democrat running who has won a statewide vote. There is a lot of money to be made running for that seat, even for the loser. Both of the Democrats running for it have lost general elections for Senate before. So I don't believe the DNC wants to win the race, and I know the state party prefers to lose with huge wallets. The Democratic politicians of Kentucky are fairly horrid, wealthy, neoliberal nightmares and the idea that we need to have more of the same old shit as our next president is ridiculous. A state with a better standard of living than Kentucky needs to provide the next president.
I’m not sure even Beshear could overcome partisan gravity in Kentucky. As we saw with both Steve Bullock and Larry Hogan, voters are more inclined to cross party lines for a governor than a senator.
The mainstream Dem perception is that Beshear will prove more appealing to swing voters -- Bill Clinton style -- and, of course, more overtly liberal Dems will turn out for him because, well, it would be catastrophic to let Vance win. As Noah and I have discussed, it’s frustrating to see how one-sided this argument is, as mainstream Dems who are normally “vote blue no matter who” would suddenly hem and haw about supporting AOC if she won the nomination.
I don’t think there’d be a ton of hemming and hawing about aoc, actually. I could be wrong, but she’s done a lot to shore up her partisan bona fides, and I think would have a lot of more mainstream allies endorsing her. (Peltola, for example.)
I'm not so sanguine. The centrist wing of the party would start howling about how she's just like mamdani or something, and third way is already after her blood (to say nothing of how the rest of the Republican party would treat her)
And if there's one thing the Democrats have proven, there's fewer things they hate more than a overtly left wing politician. Especially when they're a woman. Who has more melanin than Casper.
Chuck Schumer never officially endorsed Mamdani. It would not surprise me if some major Dems refused to endorse AOC if she were to win. I also imagine it could go to a contested convention. She would be seen as a serious threat.
Call me cynical, but I have less than zero faith in party leadership...and a vast swath of party outside of leadership for that matter. At the end of the day leadership and the entire centrist wing is nothing but controlled opposition.
Schumer for sure, Jeffries and slotkin as well. Probably booker. Also Angus king. I could see gillibrand not endorsing her. Ro khana is a toss up in my mind, since he’s in bed with crypto bros. I could absolutely see newsome running attack ads on her that he got from TPUSA.
If they really do try to run him I will follow every place he stops and tell the folks just exactly what his flexibility with reaching across the aisle has felt like, and how little power he has due to the supermajority (again 40% of state assembly seats Republicans have no other party competition) how our schools are effected, our healthcare, I can bring the women who had to leave the state to get medically necessary abortions to live, trans adults and kids and their families can describe choosing to stay in fear or leave their homes here forever. I can go on and on, I would LOVE to have the opportunity.
I've lived here since kindergarten and the governor's office has passed back and forth from Democrat to Republican control every two terms or less pretty solidly that entire time. Occasionally we'll get a one termer, usually a Republican (Bevin was the last example) that's just not popular due to their personality. I'm wondering if Beshear is the last of these. I do think it'd be a better choice than either Booker or McGrath. Not for my ideal policy positions but just to win. I despise McGrath (voted for her anyway) and I voted for Booker in the primary and general last time. Attica Scott ran for my House Representative when Yarmuth retired but I got stuck with McGarvey instead. Attica is here on substack and she may have a piece on how she was treated even though she'd announced her intention to run prior to McGarvey. It was truly demoralizing to watch happen.
“So I don't believe the DNC wants to win the race”
Judging by the way the leadership acts I don't think they want to win any more races than necessary to stay politically relevant enough to spam us with fundraising emails.
I got an email from the state party a few weeks ago, it was literally the same week they'd reported locally that again multiple state legislator races would have zero Democrats running in the primary (or the general) so whichever nightmare won that seat in the Republican primary was going to win. The email WASN'T about how they planned to fix this recurring lack of any opposition, it wasn't even asking for money to work on the fact they ignore the majority of the state. It was seriously to ask me to come celebrate all their "accomplishments" at a gala dinner where the cheapest plate was $125.a person
They didn't elucidate what these accomplishments were either. Letting a sex pest (but a zionist democrat sex pest) stay in office in Frankfort? I hate them so freaking much.
fwiw, Republicans often don't field serious candidates in deep blue districts either. it's less talked about, but...I mean, in very blue (or red) districts, it's often difficult to find someone on your side who wants to run, and then you have to decide whether the funds might be better spent elsewhere on a winnable seat. both parties make these calculations. it's not about them not wanting to win. it's that winning strategy doesn't always mean fielding a candidate in every race, unfortunately.
Could be? If it’s a very red state, Ds might not be competitive.
It’s hard to fault Ds current strategy; they just blew out a Wisconsin sc seat, overperformed by 26 points in mtg’s old seat, won a mayoral election in a deep red county… won a mayors race in Oklahoma.
Well I can't really see how they'll ever become competitive in the future if they don't run candidates outside of the largest urban areas. The fact that they then gatekeep by endorsing the most center-right candidate for races where a democrat is definitely going to win in those same cities doesn't sit well with me at all. I'm glad you have more faith and confidence in their intentions and current strategy and I also truly want you to be correct about both of those things. Because we can't both be correct and I'd prefer to be wrong about this.
This might seem really cold way to look at all of this, but here goes.
We know that trauma repeats itself in families as victims grow up to become perpetrators of violence. We have some tools to help break that cycle.
Is Israel caught in such a cycle? Will the victims of genocide, given power and stability, reenact the violence done to them in the name of protecting themselves? Is there a cycle of genocide, and if so, how do we break it?
I like to imagine a future where Palestinians are safe, free and self-determining alongside their neighbors, who enjoy the same. Is it even possible?
At the moment, humanity looks pretty irredeemable. But also: beautiful, creative, loving, bright.
I don’t think victims are doomed to perpetrate violence; many of them don’t! similarly, Israel’s actions are the result of a series of (horrible) choices made over many years (and not just by Israel.)
The Holocaust has been used as a justification in a range of ways, but I don’t think it’s really the reason, exactly. Zionism is very similar in ideology and action to a lot of colonial projects, after all.
The United States was formed after the colonists rejected British tyranny while imposing even more brutal tyranny on enslaved people. This sort of hypocrisy is not uncommon. What’s frustrating is the idea that you can’t criticize Israel for its worst actions.
Back in 2008 or so, John Oliver did a segment on The Daily Show when he explained that the U.S. position on torture was basically anything they did was not by definition torture because the U.S. would never do those things and you’re unpatriotic to even suggest it. We all laughed at that absurd logic. But it’s sad to see so many Dems like Beshear and Shapiro invoke it now for Israel: “Israel exists because of a horrific genocide so obviously Israel could never commit its own genocide and you are antisemitic for even suggesting it."
The people that founded the US didn't object to British tyranny, they objected to the fact that they weren't the ones in charge of the tyranny. They were so obnoxiously vile that even the other vile people in charge couldn't stand them and more or less forced them out.
The puritan fucks that inflicted themselves on this unsuspecting continent were very similar to modern day evangelicals. Which explains a lot when you think about it.
It's hard to compare anything to the Holocaust, but there isn't an ascendant genocidal military movement in Armenia, or Rwanda. Muslims in the Balkans or Myanmar are not trying to build an apartheid regime. The trauma of genocide and centuries of antitsemitism are big factors in the success of Zionists and imperialists trying to cleanse the Holy Land of their enemies, but a lot of folks in Europe and America wanted to do that before the Holocaust and would probably still be trying to had the Holocaust never happened. There's nothing that makes genocide inevitable. There's no inevitable result of genocide. There's always room to fight against the forces that treat humanity as a resource to be hoarded and siphoned and spilled at will.
I contact the do-as-little-to-nothing democrats often, reminding them that they (Harris Walz) lost to TheracistrapistRUMP because of Genocide Joe and the DNC's continuing support of zIsrael and its attempted Genocide!
The Ds didn’t rally anyone because ppl were angry about inflation.
Youth vote has swung hard back to Ds; that suggests the issue was anti incumbent sentiment rather than some hard and fast alienation from Ds on ideological grounds.
I don’t think it helps the cause of Palestine to argue its proponents were responsible for th current admin.
People (young n old but certainly college kids) were angry about the Israeli n USA attempted Genocide of Palestinian families! I am a retired Catholic Church worker for Social Justice Ministry including a Holy Land Ministry.
As a Kentuckian who's voted for Beshear for every office he's won, I am mortified by the idea of him as a national candidate. What I've accepted as a compromise in my very red state's office holders I'm not willing to accept as the best the party can do. He SHOULD be running for McConnell's senate seat because he'd be the only Democrat running who has won a statewide vote. There is a lot of money to be made running for that seat, even for the loser. Both of the Democrats running for it have lost general elections for Senate before. So I don't believe the DNC wants to win the race, and I know the state party prefers to lose with huge wallets. The Democratic politicians of Kentucky are fairly horrid, wealthy, neoliberal nightmares and the idea that we need to have more of the same old shit as our next president is ridiculous. A state with a better standard of living than Kentucky needs to provide the next president.
I’m not sure even Beshear could overcome partisan gravity in Kentucky. As we saw with both Steve Bullock and Larry Hogan, voters are more inclined to cross party lines for a governor than a senator.
The mainstream Dem perception is that Beshear will prove more appealing to swing voters -- Bill Clinton style -- and, of course, more overtly liberal Dems will turn out for him because, well, it would be catastrophic to let Vance win. As Noah and I have discussed, it’s frustrating to see how one-sided this argument is, as mainstream Dems who are normally “vote blue no matter who” would suddenly hem and haw about supporting AOC if she won the nomination.
I don’t think there’d be a ton of hemming and hawing about aoc, actually. I could be wrong, but she’s done a lot to shore up her partisan bona fides, and I think would have a lot of more mainstream allies endorsing her. (Peltola, for example.)
I'm not so sanguine. The centrist wing of the party would start howling about how she's just like mamdani or something, and third way is already after her blood (to say nothing of how the rest of the Republican party would treat her)
And if there's one thing the Democrats have proven, there's fewer things they hate more than a overtly left wing politician. Especially when they're a woman. Who has more melanin than Casper.
oh, people would oppose her!
but it wouldn't be like Bernie. she's put a lot of effort into being a different sort of figure.
I get that, I just think the fact she's a woman of color would sink her candidacy in the eyes of party leadership and the centrist wing.
I'm sure there'd be opposition. but if she gets the votes, I think people wil rally behind her.
Chuck Schumer never officially endorsed Mamdani. It would not surprise me if some major Dems refused to endorse AOC if she were to win. I also imagine it could go to a contested convention. She would be seen as a serious threat.
Lots of house Ds, not all progressives, want aoc to challenge Schumer….
I don’t think someone who’s campaigning for peltola is going to be seen as an unacceptable risk by most of elected Ds. I could be wrong!
Call me cynical, but I have less than zero faith in party leadership...and a vast swath of party outside of leadership for that matter. At the end of the day leadership and the entire centrist wing is nothing but controlled opposition.
If that happens I'm half expecting them to put Joe manchin forward as their preferred candidate.🤣
Manchin is loathes by everyone, centrists included. his various efforts to float presidential campaigns all cratered for that reason.
Schumer for sure, Jeffries and slotkin as well. Probably booker. Also Angus king. I could see gillibrand not endorsing her. Ro khana is a toss up in my mind, since he’s in bed with crypto bros. I could absolutely see newsome running attack ads on her that he got from TPUSA.
Fetterman goes without saying.
If they really do try to run him I will follow every place he stops and tell the folks just exactly what his flexibility with reaching across the aisle has felt like, and how little power he has due to the supermajority (again 40% of state assembly seats Republicans have no other party competition) how our schools are effected, our healthcare, I can bring the women who had to leave the state to get medically necessary abortions to live, trans adults and kids and their families can describe choosing to stay in fear or leave their homes here forever. I can go on and on, I would LOVE to have the opportunity.
I've lived here since kindergarten and the governor's office has passed back and forth from Democrat to Republican control every two terms or less pretty solidly that entire time. Occasionally we'll get a one termer, usually a Republican (Bevin was the last example) that's just not popular due to their personality. I'm wondering if Beshear is the last of these. I do think it'd be a better choice than either Booker or McGrath. Not for my ideal policy positions but just to win. I despise McGrath (voted for her anyway) and I voted for Booker in the primary and general last time. Attica Scott ran for my House Representative when Yarmuth retired but I got stuck with McGarvey instead. Attica is here on substack and she may have a piece on how she was treated even though she'd announced her intention to run prior to McGarvey. It was truly demoralizing to watch happen.
“So I don't believe the DNC wants to win the race”
Judging by the way the leadership acts I don't think they want to win any more races than necessary to stay politically relevant enough to spam us with fundraising emails.
I got an email from the state party a few weeks ago, it was literally the same week they'd reported locally that again multiple state legislator races would have zero Democrats running in the primary (or the general) so whichever nightmare won that seat in the Republican primary was going to win. The email WASN'T about how they planned to fix this recurring lack of any opposition, it wasn't even asking for money to work on the fact they ignore the majority of the state. It was seriously to ask me to come celebrate all their "accomplishments" at a gala dinner where the cheapest plate was $125.a person
They didn't elucidate what these accomplishments were either. Letting a sex pest (but a zionist democrat sex pest) stay in office in Frankfort? I hate them so freaking much.
fwiw, Republicans often don't field serious candidates in deep blue districts either. it's less talked about, but...I mean, in very blue (or red) districts, it's often difficult to find someone on your side who wants to run, and then you have to decide whether the funds might be better spent elsewhere on a winnable seat. both parties make these calculations. it's not about them not wanting to win. it's that winning strategy doesn't always mean fielding a candidate in every race, unfortunately.
40% of the seats? Multiple years of almost half of the state legislature?
Could be? If it’s a very red state, Ds might not be competitive.
It’s hard to fault Ds current strategy; they just blew out a Wisconsin sc seat, overperformed by 26 points in mtg’s old seat, won a mayoral election in a deep red county… won a mayors race in Oklahoma.
Well I can't really see how they'll ever become competitive in the future if they don't run candidates outside of the largest urban areas. The fact that they then gatekeep by endorsing the most center-right candidate for races where a democrat is definitely going to win in those same cities doesn't sit well with me at all. I'm glad you have more faith and confidence in their intentions and current strategy and I also truly want you to be correct about both of those things. Because we can't both be correct and I'd prefer to be wrong about this.
This might seem really cold way to look at all of this, but here goes.
We know that trauma repeats itself in families as victims grow up to become perpetrators of violence. We have some tools to help break that cycle.
Is Israel caught in such a cycle? Will the victims of genocide, given power and stability, reenact the violence done to them in the name of protecting themselves? Is there a cycle of genocide, and if so, how do we break it?
I like to imagine a future where Palestinians are safe, free and self-determining alongside their neighbors, who enjoy the same. Is it even possible?
At the moment, humanity looks pretty irredeemable. But also: beautiful, creative, loving, bright.
I don’t think victims are doomed to perpetrate violence; many of them don’t! similarly, Israel’s actions are the result of a series of (horrible) choices made over many years (and not just by Israel.)
The Holocaust has been used as a justification in a range of ways, but I don’t think it’s really the reason, exactly. Zionism is very similar in ideology and action to a lot of colonial projects, after all.
The United States was formed after the colonists rejected British tyranny while imposing even more brutal tyranny on enslaved people. This sort of hypocrisy is not uncommon. What’s frustrating is the idea that you can’t criticize Israel for its worst actions.
Back in 2008 or so, John Oliver did a segment on The Daily Show when he explained that the U.S. position on torture was basically anything they did was not by definition torture because the U.S. would never do those things and you’re unpatriotic to even suggest it. We all laughed at that absurd logic. But it’s sad to see so many Dems like Beshear and Shapiro invoke it now for Israel: “Israel exists because of a horrific genocide so obviously Israel could never commit its own genocide and you are antisemitic for even suggesting it."
The people that founded the US didn't object to British tyranny, they objected to the fact that they weren't the ones in charge of the tyranny. They were so obnoxiously vile that even the other vile people in charge couldn't stand them and more or less forced them out.
The puritan fucks that inflicted themselves on this unsuspecting continent were very similar to modern day evangelicals. Which explains a lot when you think about it.
It's hard to compare anything to the Holocaust, but there isn't an ascendant genocidal military movement in Armenia, or Rwanda. Muslims in the Balkans or Myanmar are not trying to build an apartheid regime. The trauma of genocide and centuries of antitsemitism are big factors in the success of Zionists and imperialists trying to cleanse the Holy Land of their enemies, but a lot of folks in Europe and America wanted to do that before the Holocaust and would probably still be trying to had the Holocaust never happened. There's nothing that makes genocide inevitable. There's no inevitable result of genocide. There's always room to fight against the forces that treat humanity as a resource to be hoarded and siphoned and spilled at will.
I contact the do-as-little-to-nothing democrats often, reminding them that they (Harris Walz) lost to TheracistrapistRUMP because of Genocide Joe and the DNC's continuing support of zIsrael and its attempted Genocide!
I don’t actually think they lost because of Gaza. Inflation was what most people cited, and what most experts think was the main issue.
But not everything is about electoral politics. The genocide is bad because it’s a genocide, whatever effect it may or may not have had on 2024.
Most "voters" stayed home, no? The Dems didn't rally the Youth who were clearly against Genocide!
The Ds didn’t rally anyone because ppl were angry about inflation.
Youth vote has swung hard back to Ds; that suggests the issue was anti incumbent sentiment rather than some hard and fast alienation from Ds on ideological grounds.
I don’t think it helps the cause of Palestine to argue its proponents were responsible for th current admin.
Wow! You're blaming the voters instead of the politicians!?!?!?!
?? I'm not blaming the voters? I don't think Gaza was what caused the loss, so I don't think pro Palestine advocates are to blame.
People (young n old but certainly college kids) were angry about the Israeli n USA attempted Genocide of Palestinian families! I am a retired Catholic Church worker for Social Justice Ministry including a Holy Land Ministry.