politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The party can't find a candidate further to the right than Manchin, and Manchin isn't seeking re-election because he knows he can no longer win.
Moving to the right has failed. Even if Shrewsbury loses, and I'm so fucking delighted to say this, he's the best candidate you have. If he doesn't win, it's because centrist Democrats stayed home when they didn't get their first choice and didn't want to vote blue no matter who.
If he does win, centrists were lying about progressives not being able to win red states.
Centrists have always lied about progressives being able to win in red states. The key in WV (and most red states) is a heavy emphasis on worker power and advancing organized labor.
You forgot about gun rights. But nobody wants to talk about that... And I'll get down voted for mentioning it.
They would need to take a Midwestern stance on firearms most likely. Tbh a socialist would likely fit the role nicely. As the saying goes, "you get your guns back when you move far enough left"
May I ask you to expand on that? What stance do Midwesterners take on gun rights?
Also, oddly I didn't get downvoted.
The Midwest has a weird stance on guns in general. Even the most staunch liberals in the Midwest oppose "assault-style weapon" bans. The emphasis has been on raising the bar to ownership without heavy restrictions after reaching that bar.
From my experience, there's also a very healthy gun safety culture. I have some friends that are dumber than a box of rocks, and even they never touch their guns after any kind of drinking or drug use. The restrictions on using guns as a minor mixed with the very popular activity of hunting means anyone that has any genuine interest in guns has at least 5 years of training before they can even purchase a gun.
I agree with all of this.
To be clear though a minor has 5 years of training before they can purchase a firearm am I understanding that correctly?
It's a bit of extrapolation, my bad. The Midwest (or at least my state) doesn't allow anyone under the age of 12 to go hunting with a firearm. At the age of 12, the kid must graduate a 6 week state-ran hunting/firearm safety course. After that, they must be within a certain distance of a legal guardian at all times if the gun is loaded. Because of the instilled safety culture, safety is also enforced by the guardian. They can purchase a gun at age 18.
These are extremely fair rules. I was much younger when I started shooting and I wish I was raised in a more safety oriented gun culture. Thanks for sharing this. May I ask what state this is? I'm assuming Michigan.
Close, but no cigar! I live in Minnesota. From what I hear, our gun laws are very similar to Michigan. Iowa and Wisconsin aren't as strict, but the safety culture seem to cross state lines from what I've seen
its a legit question. I also want to see the the parent poster says, but I tend to agree
socialist rifle association is a thing and I personally know strongly left of center peeps that are protective of their gun rights for all the obvious reasons you might care to think of. makes sense in many ways.
I think I'm just used to the other site and getting down voted for any mention of gun rights support.
I'm aware of SRA and dig what I've seen them do near Tucson. Maybe I should join.
I hope he has direct funding from individual small donations. If he relies on party funding, they'll yank the rug out from under him like they did with Vallejo and then gleefully announce that progressives can't win.
I hope he goes to the DSA for funding. They're the best socialist org equipped to fund a campaign, CPUSA simply doesn't have the money.
I just hope he doesn't rely on the Democratic Party. I've seen how that ends.
No, it means Trump voters refused to vote for him when enough of them were ok with voting for a centrist Democrat.
69% of West Virginia voted for Trump. You cannot win without at least some of them. We shall see if a self described Socialist can get enough of them but it doesn't look good.
Already addressed that. Manchin's not seeking re-election because he knows that centrist Democrats' only strategy of moving to the right has failed.
But you claimed that Shrewsbury losing would be because centrist Democrats didn't come out to vote for him and that's just not (necessarily) the case. Any Democrat needs all Democrats to win in West Virginia, but they also need much more than that. That is why a centrist Democrat like Manchin had a chance to win multiple times in the state. That strategy isn't "failed," it's the only reason we're even talking about a Democratic Senator from West Virginia.
If there is an alternative strategy that can win West Virginia as a Socialist Democrat, it would truly be unprecedented, that would absolutely cause a big shift for political strategy in the party. But a Socialist Democrat losing in West Virginia doesn't prove anything, that's the obvious outcome everyone expects.
Your god is leaving because he knows he can no longer win, and there's no one who is as big a sellout as he is to replace him.
Moving to the right has failed. I get that you want to keep doing it, but it's failed.
You don't have to be a fan of Manchin to know his way is the only way a Democrat could win in West Virginia.
Him choosing not to run for Senate again doesn't mean he didn't win the seat 3 times. It did work. He is currently in the Senate. Shrewsbury hasn't gotten a single vote yet, let's pump the brakes on assuming his strategy is better, let alone actually able to win.
Was the only way. He's not running, and there's no one in the party to his right. The party can move left or abandon the state entirely.
I get that Shrewsbury isn't your first choice, but vote blue no matter who.
I would absolutely vote for Shrewsbury in a general election if that was the choice in front of me, and I wouldn't even complain relentlessly about "voting blue no matter who" because I know it is indeed the best way to accomplish my preferred political goals.
I follow your logic to a point. There is obviously a potential candidate who is to the left of Manchin while not being as far left as Shrewsbury, they just haven't declared a candidacy yet.
If the Democrats end up nominating a socialist in West Virginia, they chose the "abandon the state entirely" option.
There's a fair few who don't vote at all anymore. Also, many Trump voters did so because it was a chance to get away from establishment politics. They could as easily see the same thing in a socialist candidate.
West Virginia has pretty equal numbers of registered Democrats and Republicans (36.5% & 36.8% respectively) so this will be a battle over turn out and convincing the remaining voters. We'll see where his numbers are in six months.
.
And I fully intend to hold centrist Democrats responsible for their turnout or lack thereof. The party is as entitled to their votes now as it was when it was demanding progressives' votes for Manchin. And I'm not expecting the candidate to do a fucking thing to please centrists. They're not Republicans. That was enough when it was Manchin. Remember, progressives vote with the party 95% of the time!
Bernie took w Virginia over Hillary, I think if he raises enough money and communicates his message well people will respond to him. My gut says that Jim Justice will get the Republican nomination and he will be a difficult candidate to beat. He's won governor races as a Democrat and a Republican. Trump likes justice and Trump won west Virginia handedly. The odds are stacked against Shrewsbury but I still think he has a good chance if he can establish his own story and not let justice paint him as some crazy Marxist.
Maybe. But the centrists will need to vote blue no matter who, like they've been screaming at any progressive who is less than pleased with people like Manchin.
We'll see. Turn out for the last election was the best since 1960. I think turn out will go down next year unfortunately. I truly hope I'm wrong. But I think next year is going to be a democratic massacre. People like Shrewsbury might actually turn that around. Who knows.
Well, it's clear that people like Manchin can't.
Joe manchin did win three Senate races he was also a secretary of state and governor of West Virginia. That's a lot of wins for a Democrat in West Virginia where Trump beat Biden by something like 39%. I'm not trying to tell you to like him or anything but that's impressive to me.
He's not running for re-election because knows he can no longer win. Moving to the right has failed.
Well neither one of us knows what he's thinking and neither one of us has a crystal ball but this race is going to be a difficult run for any Democrat. Justice may very well have been able to out-Manchin Manchin. I think it's a good idea to make this a contest of completely different world views. Neither one of knows right now who would win Manchin vs Justice or Shrewsbury vs Justice.
I mean, his entire career leads me to believe that he's doing what is best for himself and only himself. If he thought he had a chance of keeping a job in which he can tell the president to kiss his ass and seriously expect him to comply, why would he instead be openly considering a run as a third party nobody?
Considering one is running and the other isn't, I'd say the one who is running stands a more favorable chance against Justice.
I don't know what's in Manchin's head. I don't think he wants to run as a spoiler for Biden. I think he's looking to run as a spoiler for Trump. Then again he could be talking about a presidental run just to stay in the limelight. Who knows.
I don't like saying, "manchin knows he can't win so he's not running" because I don't know that. There could be some alternate reality where he runs and beats Justice. Maybe Sanders could have beaten Trump. Maybe Trump would have beaten Sanders. My point is there's no way for us to know any of these things.
We're not in that reality. Manchin's time in the senate is over. And here's hoping he never holds any office ever again. He's a corrupt nutsack on his best day.
Sure. He's totally that altruistic. He wants, in order to spoil in favor of the guy whose agenda he blocked, to abandon his ability to continue to block it.
The simplest answer is he knows he won't win.
It's very popular among the left wing of the party to hate manchin. But I'd rather have a manchin than a markwayne mullin or a josh hawley.
Why do you think that?
West Virginia used to vote Democrat, but has swung pretty hard right in recent years.
The last time the state voted Democrat in a presidential election was for Bill Clinton in 1996, who got 51.51% of the vote. Obama only got 35% of the vote in 2012, and neither Hillary nor Biden got over 30%.
Currently, Manchin is the only Democrat left in statewide office. Everyone else either died or retired, or they switched parties.
Why do you think that the only possible explanation for Shrewsbury losing is centrist Democrats not 'voting vote no matter who' instead of Republicans outnumbering Democrats in the state?
It's a little silly to declare that no matter what the outcome, the test proves your case.
Really? Up until now, every time a centrist is protected by the party, we're told that it's because progressives can't win. Every time a centrist loses, it's because progressives stay home.
If the test seems silly or unfair now, it was silly and unfair when centrists were using it, and you had no complaints then.
I don't recall ever agreeing with an argument this silly but you seem fairly confident I had no complaints about it.
If you've never noticed it, you haven't been paying attention for the past 8 years.