EPTOn November 19 2025 04:06 ChristianS wrote:
I’m not aware of many mechanisms to force people out early, for better or worse. Anyway I think it’s more about defining what we expect of our elected officials and yelling at them when they fail – I don’t know if Booker needs to be replaced or not, but I’d like him to know what he needs to do to have a chance.
Ultimately you don’t want a coalition composed only of temperature-taking careerists who are only doing what think will keep them in power. You need a good number of true believers who aren’t gonna cut and run as soon as things look a bit dire. But in the meantime if people are making those careerist calculations, we need the math to come out against “let the fascists take over.”
Show nested quote +
On November 19 2025 01:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I agree with Marshall's list and I agree with you about ending ICE and the importance of mobilization. I also appreciate you taking the time to write in an articulate and tactful manner. One of your statements is "if they’re not willing to fight, they need to give up their seat to someone who will", and I totally agree - it's why I said we should replace ineffective politicians (and that includes voting for better candidates over ineffective Democrats during the primaries). When I think about ineffective politicians "giving up their seats", I tend to think about the election cycle - voting in better politicians when the current ineffective ones have to run for re-election. Is this typically what you're referring to too, or are you also considering other ways to immediately force politicians to "give up their seats" during their term, such as impeachment or some sort of community effort to oust a politician before the next election? I don't know where I stand on those other methods just yet.
On November 19 2025 00:14 ChristianS wrote:
Sure, I get it. GH comes across as a scold, and it’s completely reasonable to say “I haven’t done the research to have a full answer to that question right now.” I don’t even know how many Dem Senators I can name off the top of my head, I certainly don’t have pro and con lists for each one, and I’m not more motivated to do that work because, like, what am I gonna do with it anyway? Write about it here I guess?
That said, I shared that Josh Marshall piece talking about more or less this issue. Something he’s enthused about is that despite the fumble at the finish line, the Dems at the end of the year were still night and day from the Dems back in March or whatever. Back then Schumer made them agree to some bullshit CR because he didn’t think it was the right time to fight or something. That decision got ridiculed all year, and that crowd got so spooked they waited more than a month to cave, and created all this theater around it when they finally caved because they’re scared of the blowback they’ll get.
So to me what GH (or if you prefer, Josh Marshall) is talking about is just follow-through. We’ve got them running scared, now we need to track them to their hidey-holes – if they’re not willing to fight, they need to give up their seat to someone who will. This political moment requires an opposition that’s willing and able to fight back.
I mean, thinking about the endgame here: the only constitutional remedy to most of these abuses is impeachment. Of course we all know GH is not putting his faith in “constitutional remedies” – he’s hoping we all see the futility of that and join his revolution – but something I think he’d agree with me on is that a large majority of Americans (including the ones he’ll need to persuade for his revolution to work) still believe in the power of those systems. They’re going to need to see them fail before they’re willing to entertain his ideas. So either they mobilize and the constitutional remedies succeed, or they fail and people become open to more radical solutions (maybe his solutions, maybe not).
What I’m scared of (and maybe he is too) is that people are already too jaded to mobilize in the first place – they vaguely believe in the abstract that electoral solutions are the “right way” and reject his revolutionary talk, but then they turn around and don’t do what the electoral solutions would require either. That’s the loss condition here, imo.
On November 18 2025 19:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Sure. And if you ask a voter what their perspective is on politician X and the voter tells you that they honestly haven't yet had a chance to research the politician to the extent they're satisfied with / to the extent you're looking for - but that the voter is definitely going to do a deep dive into politician X soon, and the voter would be happy to get back to you with their thoughts on politician X when they have more time - it might not be the most persuasive move for you to then condescendingly lecture that voter on how the voter's eventual assessment is probably nothing more than "empty clichés that are hopeless" and that the voter is actually "refusing to apply metrics" just because they don't immediately have an answer the moment you asked them a question. (When I write "you", I'm not referring to you, ChristianS.)
On November 18 2025 15:10 ChristianS wrote:
I also think I might agree! I mean I don’t begrudge DPB wanting to focus on his own representatives and/or specific (rather than abstract) candidates, but at the same time I think it’s perfectly valid for me to say “Chuck Schumer should be replaced as caucus leader” even though I don’t have an alternative leader in mind and I’m not one of the people who gets to vote on that. And if I ask someone if they agree and they say “well, I don’t get a vote on that” that feels like a dodge.
On November 18 2025 09:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
That failure to recognize where those "alternative primary challengers" come from and when/why they are necessary is part of why your rhetoric about your metrics are really just empty clichés that are hopeless at actually making the changes in the Democrat party that you ostensibly want.
It's not just you that thinks like this. It's basically every "improve the Democrats from within" type I've ever encountered (that hasn't abandoned the party at this point) that is waiting for a "bridge" to cross, instead of doing the obviously necessary work to build it.
Then when the bridge doesn't magically manifest or (despite other people's hard work) is less prefered than the established road (to apocalyptic climate catastrophes among others), the "only rational choice" is to choose the scenic route to apocalypse over the shortcut offered by the other party.
As ChristianS suggested,
I'd add (and I think ChristianS might agree?) that we all have to work on identifying who these politicians that aren't sufficiently fighting are prior to the date to file for a primary so we can plan accordingly. If they don't/won't retire, then they should be primaried.
On November 18 2025 08:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
This question is irrelevant because I'm not in charge of whether or not a candidate gets primaried. I don't get to choose who gets primaried and who doesn't. When the time comes for him to run for re-election, and if/when he has to run against an alternative primary challenger, I'll assess how he "scores on my metrics" and compare that to how his opponent "scores on my metrics" in 2026. It's on a relative scale, between two or more actual candidates. I'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it. And as I said at the very beginning, this should be done "for both the primary elections and the general elections". (This also is nothing new, and it's what all of us have been doing for years already.)
On November 18 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
You're not alone. Which is a major contributor to why it doesn't happen/hasn't happened often enough to work at scale. It takes people like you (who already spend more time and bandwidth than most investigating and discussing politics) making time and bandwidth for it.
It's also part of why I've been asking you about Booker. How does he score on your metrics for if he needs to be primaried or not? Your metrics are pretty useless/hopeless if you can't/refuse to apply them to your own Senator in 2026.
Otherwise it's basically just another iteration of the hollow/useless rhetoric I described before
On November 18 2025 05:01 WombaT wrote:
Why do you want to primary them? Do you want to do so because you think it’ll make a vaguely similar platform win with a better quality of candidate, or do you want a completely different platform that you think can also win and is a better platform?
Those are good questions for DPB and other people who believe it is a viable strategy moving forward. I look forward to seeing their answers...On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]I think you misunderstand.
I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that [quote] into a metric for who to primary in 2026.
As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric?
[quote]I think you misunderstand.
I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that [quote] into a metric for who to primary in 2026.
As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric?
Why do you want to primary them? Do you want to do so because you think it’ll make a vaguely similar platform win with a better quality of candidate, or do you want a completely different platform that you think can also win and is a better platform?
On November 18 2025 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
+ Show Spoiler + I don't have the time or bandwidth right now to look into future seats that I hope will soon be challenged + Show Spoiler +
On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]I think you misunderstand.
I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that [quote] into a metric for who to primary in 2026.
As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric?
[quote]I think you misunderstand.
I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that [quote] into a metric for who to primary in 2026.
As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric?
+ Show Spoiler +
Yes, I think we can use it as a metric for who to primary in 2026. In my opinion, just because a seat is already blue doesn't mean it can't be a better version of blue. I hope that more left-wing progressive politicians are willing to challenge moderate-left incumbents, and if that happens in elections that I can vote in, I'll happily support those further-left progressive challengers.
during the next election cycle, but when they do happen in spaces where I can vote (local, state, national), I pay attention to who's running and try to help whoever I consider to be the best option.
You're not alone. Which is a major contributor to why it doesn't happen/hasn't happened often enough to work at scale. It takes people like you (who already spend more time and bandwidth than most investigating and discussing politics) making time and bandwidth for it.
It's also part of why I've been asking you about Booker. How does he score on your metrics for if he needs to be primaried or not? Your metrics are pretty useless/hopeless if you can't/refuse to apply them to your own Senator in 2026.
Otherwise it's basically just another iteration of the hollow/useless rhetoric I described before
This question is irrelevant because I'm not in charge of whether or not a candidate gets primaried. I don't get to choose who gets primaried and who doesn't. When the time comes for him to run for re-election, and if/when he has to run against an alternative primary challenger, I'll assess how he "scores on my metrics" and compare that to how his opponent "scores on my metrics" in 2026. It's on a relative scale, between two or more actual candidates. I'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it. And as I said at the very beginning, this should be done "for both the primary elections and the general elections". (This also is nothing new, and it's what all of us have been doing for years already.)
That failure to recognize where those "alternative primary challengers" come from and when/why they are necessary is part of why your rhetoric about your metrics are really just empty clichés that are hopeless at actually making the changes in the Democrat party that you ostensibly want.
It's not just you that thinks like this. It's basically every "improve the Democrats from within" type I've ever encountered (that hasn't abandoned the party at this point) that is waiting for a "bridge" to cross, instead of doing the obviously necessary work to build it.
Then when the bridge doesn't magically manifest or (despite other people's hard work) is less prefered than the established road (to apocalyptic climate catastrophes among others), the "only rational choice" is to choose the scenic route to apocalypse over the shortcut offered by the other party.
As ChristianS suggested,
...In more stable times maybe that could be tolerated, but in this moment we don’t have room for complacency. If someone can fight, they should do it, if they can’t they should retire.
I'd add (and I think ChristianS might agree?) that we all have to work on identifying who these politicians that aren't sufficiently fighting are prior to the date to file for a primary so we can plan accordingly. If they don't/won't retire, then they should be primaried.
I also think I might agree! I mean I don’t begrudge DPB wanting to focus on his own representatives and/or specific (rather than abstract) candidates, but at the same time I think it’s perfectly valid for me to say “Chuck Schumer should be replaced as caucus leader” even though I don’t have an alternative leader in mind and I’m not one of the people who gets to vote on that. And if I ask someone if they agree and they say “well, I don’t get a vote on that” that feels like a dodge.
Sure. And if you ask a voter what their perspective is on politician X and the voter tells you that they honestly haven't yet had a chance to research the politician to the extent they're satisfied with / to the extent you're looking for - but that the voter is definitely going to do a deep dive into politician X soon, and the voter would be happy to get back to you with their thoughts on politician X when they have more time - it might not be the most persuasive move for you to then condescendingly lecture that voter on how the voter's eventual assessment is probably nothing more than "empty clichés that are hopeless" and that the voter is actually "refusing to apply metrics" just because they don't immediately have an answer the moment you asked them a question. (When I write "you", I'm not referring to you, ChristianS.)
Sure, I get it. GH comes across as a scold, and it’s completely reasonable to say “I haven’t done the research to have a full answer to that question right now.” I don’t even know how many Dem Senators I can name off the top of my head, I certainly don’t have pro and con lists for each one, and I’m not more motivated to do that work because, like, what am I gonna do with it anyway? Write about it here I guess?
That said, I shared that Josh Marshall piece talking about more or less this issue. Something he’s enthused about is that despite the fumble at the finish line, the Dems at the end of the year were still night and day from the Dems back in March or whatever. Back then Schumer made them agree to some bullshit CR because he didn’t think it was the right time to fight or something. That decision got ridiculed all year, and that crowd got so spooked they waited more than a month to cave, and created all this theater around it when they finally caved because they’re scared of the blowback they’ll get.
So to me what GH (or if you prefer, Josh Marshall) is talking about is just follow-through. We’ve got them running scared, now we need to track them to their hidey-holes – if they’re not willing to fight, they need to give up their seat to someone who will. This political moment requires an opposition that’s willing and able to fight back.
I mean, thinking about the endgame here: the only constitutional remedy to most of these abuses is impeachment. Of course we all know GH is not putting his faith in “constitutional remedies” – he’s hoping we all see the futility of that and join his revolution – but something I think he’d agree with me on is that a large majority of Americans (including the ones he’ll need to persuade for his revolution to work) still believe in the power of those systems. They’re going to need to see them fail before they’re willing to entertain his ideas. So either they mobilize and the constitutional remedies succeed, or they fail and people become open to more radical solutions (maybe his solutions, maybe not).
What I’m scared of (and maybe he is too) is that people are already too jaded to mobilize in the first place – they vaguely believe in the abstract that electoral solutions are the “right way” and reject his revolutionary talk, but then they turn around and don’t do what the electoral solutions would require either. That’s the loss condition here, imo.
I agree with Marshall's list and I agree with you about ending ICE and the importance of mobilization. I also appreciate you taking the time to write in an articulate and tactful manner. One of your statements is "if they’re not willing to fight, they need to give up their seat to someone who will", and I totally agree - it's why I said we should replace ineffective politicians (and that includes voting for better candidates over ineffective Democrats during the primaries). When I think about ineffective politicians "giving up their seats", I tend to think about the election cycle - voting in better politicians when the current ineffective ones have to run for re-election. Is this typically what you're referring to too, or are you also considering other ways to immediately force politicians to "give up their seats" during their term, such as impeachment or some sort of community effort to oust a politician before the next election? I don't know where I stand on those other methods just yet.
I’m not aware of many mechanisms to force people out early, for better or worse. Anyway I think it’s more about defining what we expect of our elected officials and yelling at them when they fail – I don’t know if Booker needs to be replaced or not, but I’d like him to know what he needs to do to have a chance.
Ultimately you don’t want a coalition composed only of temperature-taking careerists who are only doing what think will keep them in power. You need a good number of true believers who aren’t gonna cut and run as soon as things look a bit dire. But in the meantime if people are making those careerist calculations, we need the math to come out against “let the fascists take over.”
Totally agree.
