Good. Fuck you and fuck off. The fact that you lost to a queer person is just icing on the cake.
Don’t call yourself a Democrat and be blatantly anti-trans. Of course you’re going to lose, you moron.
Here I was thinking “oh please tell me she didn’t lose to a regressive GOP tool” but seing who she actually lost to absolutely made my day.
The keyword here is “Primary”; in a Primary election, you are running against one or more candidates from your own party, and if you win, your name goes onto the General ballot.
Ah, so a regressive GOP tool might still win…
As someone else commented, the incumbent won their last election 87%-13% to a libertarian in a race where the GOP didn’t run a candidate.
I don’t think there’s much risk of that, thankfully.
Why the Hell was the Democrat in a district like that anything less than super-progressive to begin with?
That’s a fantastic question
Stealth Republican. I can’t say this for sure but, since the district leans so far left that the Republicans didn’t even run a candidate last time, this individual probably just ran as a Democrat even though she intended to support Republican positions once elected. Campaign as if you have the same ideals as the voters, then turn coat once you’re sworn in. It’s been done before.
That just makes my day. Maybe even my whole week.
Piss off ye regressive in Democrat clothing.
Thierry’s district … is not a swing district. … Previously, Thierry had beaten a Libertarian candidate 87%-13%, with no Republican running in the race.
In case anyone thought this might have been a tactical ploy by a dem in a heavily republican area, it was not. Just a crazy person shooting themself in the foot with their own cruel thoughts.
Literally no excuse
Thanks, I was wondering exactly that.
A big hearty fuck you and fuck off to her. The Overton window has not moved that far. The gap has just widened as the conservative right moves into open fascism.
Always nice to see a bigot lose
If Democrats want change, this is how to do it:
- Win general elections; vote blue no matter who. 2 Primary out the corporatist candidates every chance there is, right down to the level of school trustee.
This actually works, as we’ve seen with the GOP and their turn to rabid fascism. It can also work for good.
This is hard in some races. I just had to do a bunch of digging to figure out which state supreme court candidates were secretly Republicans because they’re all required to run as unaffiliated and pretend not to be biased. So they all make the same damn comments about judicial overreach but one is talking about preserving our democracy by preventing it and one is talking about imploding our democracy by doing it. My head hurts but I figured it out omfg.
That’s great to hear! Few people vote in those elections so your informed vote matters much more.
I mean it’s only the primary I hope people actually vote in the general? But it’s incredibly frustrating to vote for judges. As if we’re all so stupid as to think they’re above political bias in this day and age.
This is why I’m opposed to having elected judges, or a large number of elected offices in general. We should not depend on a handful of people who do an unreasonable amount of homework against an army of people who vote based on feels.
Win general elections; vote blue no matter who.
Staunchly supporting Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez during the general and then getting very confused when my party loses in a landslide two years later.
Diet Republican will always lose, Glad a real progressive took your place.
arguing that conversion therapy was the true solution to gender dysphoria
“Abuse is the solution”
I think she ment to say “final solution”
Can’t transition if you kill yourself
Which incidentally I’ve said to talk teenagers out of suicide
“The beatings will continue until mental health is improved.”
Real Uncle Tom energy to the suggestion that you can whip people straight.
Ah the classic “Beat the gay away”.
Tried for over 70 years by American bigots and still not succeeding in doing anything but causing extreme anguish. but its the right wingers we’re talking about, so the suffering is the point.
When asked about her anti-trans votes, [Thierry] called gender-affirming care “Black genocide.”
Does anybody even know what this is supposed to mean??
I’ve heard that stance used for abortion, so I assume it’s a statement trying to equate consensual sterilization (which shouldn’t be required to transition, but sometimes is) to the history of nonconsentual sterilization of people of color in America.
Now it’s a batshit take, but I’ve found transphobes tend to use whatever legitimate grievances they have against anybody and slap it on trans people.
The only way in which I can try and make some sense of it would be if a black person, who’s mostly in an environment where there’s mostly black people, and therefore the majority of or the only trans people they know are black, thinks that non-black trans people are insignificant, and that trans people can’t ever have children.
Personally, I’m grading this conspiracy theory with a F. Grifters used to put in more effort back in my days.
Grifters used to put in more effort back in my days.
Trump showed them they didn’t have to.
Trump already has the idiot and asshole voter markets cornered.
This is politics. You don’t have to say things that mean anything as long as they sound good.
You’re so right and it’s so depressing.
It’s roughly the same as swatting criticism of the Zionist Genocide by claiming that said criticism is anti-semitic - it conflates two quite different groups (in one case Jews and Zionists, in this case LGBT and Blacks) in order to weaponize the humanist moral position about the treatment of one of those groups to stop criticism of immoral actions by or (in this case) against a different group.
This is quite a common element of the gaslighting which is so typical of Liberal politics (a very common example is female liberal politicians defending the kind of legislation that will hurt the poor claiming that criticism of their position is due to their gender), though this specific example is an especially exagerated and ridiculous version.
Good.
The real story:
Democratic primary 2020, total votes: 14,263.
Democratic primary 2024 total votes (before run-off): 12,761.
~10% drop in Democratic primary voters (reliable D’s).
Lauren Ashley Simmons will win this district, but the things that is telling is the drop in voter engagement. These are the only data points we’ll be getting on this going into the election.
But a 10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement should be more than concering to Democrats.
Primary runoff elections were held on some random Tuesday, just after a recent election on property taxes and other local issues. If you want voter turnout, elections need to be held on consistent days every year, and not some weird date pulled out of a hat when voters already just went to the polls.
Better yet, give us ranked choice primaries so there aren’t any runoffs.
I mean, those are fine editorials, but the data is what the data is.
This isn’t the only data point. Democratic voter engagement is depressed when compared with 2020.
We’re only going to get a few more of these before the big game, and we should weight them more heavily than typical polling.
Maybe the dems should try to do better than "slightly better than Trump "
I mean that’s what the polling data is showing us.
Its a bit dated, but this specific type of poll is less common:
Whats really, really, REALLY interesting to me about this is that it ends up with the same 12 point spread that actually appeared previously in the differential polling error associated with the 2020 election. In that election, Biden was +12 going into the election (composite of polls October/ November), and basically tied.
Biden ended up under-performing his polling by an average of 4 points, and Trump over-performed his polling by an average of 8 points.
So if you swap out Biden for “Generic Democrat”, you cover, almost precisely, how much so we expect Biden to under-perform his polling come November.
I mean, Biden should have been grooming Buttigieg, grooming Kamela. We’ve got Elizebeth Warren, we’ve got Gretchen Whitmer, we’ve got Nina Turner. Ron Wyden, Jay Inslee, even Gavin Newsom (although he is not super popular).
I mean shit you really want to fuck with the opposition? Fucking run Laura Kelly, Democratic governor of Kansas. She can run on abortion as a right, based on her recent striking down of the anti-abortion legislation there.
Like the bench is deep for popular Democrats if you put even a bit of effort into collating a list.
Unfortunately the party isn’t interested in winning, it desperately wants to keep the status quo as much as possible, which is why we got biden in the first place.
By which I mean that I totally agree, but am also exasperated.
The only way I think we can change things is to get the dummy-thicc blue-no-matter-who crowd to realize and give up on Biden as a candidate. We can’t even really start the conversation with him still in the room. Move the electorate and, more importantly, the media landscape; have them come to terms with this, we can take it to the convention and see what happens.
I called this super far out, like, 8 months ago? 10 months ago? If Lemmy had a decent way to search my comments I could find it.
Meh, I’m fine with none of those people. They are all the same, working for the same overlords, only difference is Biden has a stutter. Not a single thing would be different under any of the establishment democrats it is all a coordinated hivemind. I am so sick of the same shit. The people move to the left, and the government keeps shuffling to the right. Give us someone actually progressive. It’s starting to feel like this two party system doesn’t actually represent its tax paying population, and only represents a rich few who don’t actually pay any of those taxes. It feels like the two party system is being manipulated to intentionally move things to the right to benefit the upper class. I’m starting to feel like there is some taxation without any representation and a little disenfranchised. I’m starting to feel like I REALLY don’t give a shit who gets elected because the future is shit for me and my children with either choice. Maybe those people on January 6th at least fucking DID SOMETHING. Even if I don’t agree with it. But voting doesn’t do SHIT. They make sure of it. I will vote, AgAiNsT TrUmP (yay), But the Dems can’t sit here and play with fire and be surprised when it burns them just like it did in 2016. Put in some effort to actually represent the population and people might come vote. Until then, the dems deserve what is coming to them. Problem is we are the ones that suffer. The class of people at the top, the people you just listed as candidates, are all perfectly happy with a Trump presidency. They get their tax breaks, and they get to laugh at how dumb he is on MSNBC and all the other 24 hour news diarrhea channels while he lowers the bar for future candidates. It is a best case scenario for them.
Nina Turner, Inslee, Witmer, Wyden, all super progressive. But I don’t care any more.
Like, at this point, fucking run anyone that can win. I’m just trying to put 4 more years on the count-down-to-all hell breaks loose clock. And issue I have currently is that Biden doesn’t get us there while his apologists around here claim we have no other options.
When I’m thinking about this, I’m thinking who do I want to play the game against? Who do I want sitting on the other side of the table from me in this fight? I don’t want to fight an emboldened, empowered, free from the rule of law fascist uprising. I’m too tired for that. My hips aren’t as good as they were when I was 24. I need a soft bed at night.
You’re right, those candidates are better. My brain focused on Buttigieg and Kamala in your comment and I went on a rant. Honestly starting to realize the smaller state and local elections make actual differences, everything at the federal level is a money funneling clown show.
I agree that dems have cause for concern broadly, but I’m not sure that a 10% drop during an uncontested incumbent primary translates to a “10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement”.
Just another data point.
Put it on the pile.
In Texas?
Yep, data from the 146th.
(reliable D’s).
heheheh
Lauren Ashley Simmons will win this district, but the things that is telling is the drop in voter engagement.
Negative campaigns often depress voter turnout. In this case, you’ve got a candidate espousing some really vile beliefs. Folks who aren’t enthusiastic about the incumbent and don’t know much about the challenger stay home as a result.
But a 10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement should be more than concering to Democrats.
In Texas its something of a push. But Texas Democrats love putting up shitty milquetoast moderate candidates and then getting rolled in the general election.
Its the same district, same primary, slightly different slate of candidates.
Its about as close to a controlled experiment as you’ll ever get in politics.
But Texas Democrats love putting up shitty milquetoast moderate candidates and then getting rolled in the general election.
Aint that the theme. The number of shitty rightwing Democrats being handed safe blue districts is ridiculous. Its a good thing that in this district in particular, its a pretty left-wing candidate.
Just shows that political affiliation takes a backseat to ideologocal beliefs
This is in the Texas House of Representatives (Houston).
Good. Rest in piss you fuck.
Do we still do crab rave?
🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀🦀
We try, we try…
What are the odds she will vote republican?
