this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
339 points (97.0% liked)

politics

25609 readers
3074 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Zach Shrewsbury faces an improbable task to replace the conservative Democrat in the face of a Republican onslaught – but he won’t be put off

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

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.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.