The Republican Base

[AZGrizFan]

So in other words, they don't want to increase the number of Republican women in Congress, only the number who are lockstep with them ideologically....that's no better than leftist women claiming to be all about womens' rights, but only those who are lefties.

And no better than the MAGAts that go after Republicans that don't support Lil' Donnie RINOs and chase them out of leadership positions, the party and/or Congress.

MAGAts don't like getting a taste of their own medicine.

Nope. I agree. The hypocrisy is strong inside the beltway.

[UNI88]

And no better than the MAGAts that go after Republicans that don't support Lil' Donnie RINOs and chase them out of leadership positions, the party and/or Congress.

MAGAts don't like getting a taste of their own medicine.

Nope. I agree. The hypocrisy is strong inside the beltway.

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

[AZGrizFan]

Nope. I agree. The hypocrisy is strong inside the beltway.

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

agree with that too.

[kalm]

Nope. I agree. The hypocrisy is strong inside the beltway.

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

Call me crazy but I base primary votes on who I think is the best candidate for my values...regardless of whether they’re an incumbent or not. Not sure why that’s selfish.

[UNI88]

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

Call me crazy but I base primary votes on who I think is the best candidate for my values...regardless of whether they’re an incumbent or not. Not sure why that’s selfish.

What would you call it if the extremists primary more centrist incumbents because they don't pass a purity test and then the extremist replacement candidate (MAGAt or pseudo-progressive) loses in the general election? What if the Dems lost control of the House because of this or the Reps lose a couple of Senate seats making Manchin and Sinema irrelevant?

[Ivytalk]

Nope. I agree. The hypocrisy is strong inside the beltway.

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

[BDKJMU]

Nope. I agree. The hypocrisy is strong inside the beltway.

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

Sounds like you are pro incumbency as opposed to throw the bums out.

[BDKJMU]

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with voting for a challenger in a primary.

Like I’ve said multiple times on here, I won’t vote for anyone in the House or Senate, no matter how conkish, who’s been in office more than 6 years (I’ll vote for a senator for re election once). After that, its time for them to get out of DC..

[kalm]

Call me crazy but I base primary votes on who I think is the best candidate for my values...regardless of whether they’re an incumbent or not. Not sure why that’s selfish.

What would you call it if the extremists primary more centrist incumbents because they don't pass a purity test and then the extremist replacement candidate (MAGAt or pseudo-progressive) loses in the general election? What if the Dems lost control of the House because of this or the Reps lose a couple of Senate seats making Manchin and Sinema irrelevant?

I’d call it politics.

[kalm]

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with voting for a challenger in a primary.

Like I’ve said multiple times on here, I won’t vote for anyone in the House or Senate, no matter how conkish, who’s been in office more than 6 years (I’ll vote for a senator for re election once). After that, its time for them to get out of DC..

Many elections are won and lost in the primary. Positive changes and decentralization of power are often killed in the primaries.

[UNI88]

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

I've been a small l libertarian for a long time so I understand going against the grain and voting for what you believe in. I'm posting about people who are leaders in their party who would support a primary challenger even if that challenger would have less of a chance of winning the general election than the incumbent. They either don't understand that voters in West Virginia are different from voters in NYC or they think the neanderthals will see the light once they've been shown the righteous path.

Purity/loyalty is more important than legislating, leading and actually accomplishing something.

[AZGrizFan]

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

I've been a small l libertarian for a long time so I understand going against the grain and voting for what you believe in. I'm posting about people who are leaders in their party who would support a primary challenger even if that challenger would have less of a chance of winning the general election than the incumbent. They either don't understand that voters in West Virginia are different from voters in NYC or they think the neanderthals will see the light once they've been shown the righteous path.

Purity/loyalty is more important than legislating, leading and actually accomplishing something.

Exactly. These “purity” tests are going to cause even more of a divide than we already have.

[BDKJMU]

I've been a small l libertarian for a long time so I understand going against the grain and voting for what you believe in. I'm posting about people who are leaders in their party who would support a primary challenger even if that challenger would have less of a chance of winning the general election than the incumbent. They either don't understand that voters in West Virginia are different from voters in NYC or they think the neanderthals will see the light once they've been shown the righteous path.

Purity/loyalty is more important than legislating, leading and actually accomplishing something.

Exactly. These “purity” tests are going to cause even more of a divide than we already have.

We can’t get to much more of a divide absent a civil war..

[SDHornet]

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

Agree. I mean this is the point of a primary, right?

[AZGrizFan]

Exactly. These “purity” tests are going to cause even more of a divide than we already have.

We can’t get to much more of a divide absent a civil war..

Agree, that’s why i think they’re bullshit. Politics has always been and SHOULD be a “spectrum”, not two pure ends with nobody in the middle. The party purity tests are leading this country in a dangerous direction.

[houndawg]

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

Agree. I mean this is the point of a primary, right?

Exactly the point. Bernie was a prime example in '16 by exposing a lot of cracks in what the Democrats thought was a solid foundation for a shoe-in election

[Ibanez]

I've been a small l libertarian for a long time so I understand going against the grain and voting for what you believe in. I'm posting about people who are leaders in their party who would support a primary challenger even if that challenger would have less of a chance of winning the general election than the incumbent. They either don't understand that voters in West Virginia are different from voters in NYC or they think the neanderthals will see the light once they've been shown the righteous path.

Purity/loyalty is more important than legislating, leading and actually accomplishing something.

Exactly. These “purity” tests are going to cause even more of a divide than we already have.

I've been saying that for 4 damn years!! I'm glad you people are finally waking up to this.

[Ibanez]

It's worse inside the beltway but it's not just there. The are progressive groups trying to primary sitting Democrats and MAGAt groups trying to do the same thing to Republicans who didn't do enough to support Lil' Donnie. They're a bunch of selfish crybabies who are willing to burn it all down because they aren't getting their way.

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

I read 88s post different. I didn't read it as 88 being anti-primary. Just a note on petty, extremists primarying people b/c they aren't passing the MAGA/Ulta-Progressive-tards purity test. But I can see how his post comes off as anti-primary (although, I don't believe that is his position.)

I'm all for a primary - incumbents should have to defend themselves. The problem is on the electorate who are either too lazy or too unwilling to give someone a better chance in office. Or they're too stuck in their ways and will always vote R or D b/c that's how they've always voted. I've had family members, hardcore MAGA, tell me they'd vote for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Democrat b/c they could never Democrat.

[kalm]

I disagree. If someone wants to primary an incumbent, have at it. Let the incumbents defend their positions and, if they choose, inveigh against the motives/maturity/political ideology of their challengers. Let the electorate hear all the candidates and then decide. Absent term limits, what else do we have to throw the bums out but death and primaries? 88 sounds like an advocate of entrenching the duopoly here.

I read 88s post different. I didn't read it as 88 being anti-primary. Just a note on petty, extremists primarying people b/c they aren't passing the MAGA/Ulta-Progressive-tards purity test. But I can see how his post comes off as anti-primary (although, I don't believe that is his position.)

I'm all for a primary - incumbents should have to defend themselves. The problem is on the electorate who are either too lazy or too unwilling to give someone a better chance in office. Or they're too stuck in their ways and will always vote R or D b/c that's how they've always voted. I've had family members, hardcore MAGA, tell me they'd vote for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Democrat b/c they could never Democrat.

One man’s extremist is another man’s freedom fighter. When the constituency is monied interests and those with political access, the “centrists” can also become a road block to positive change.

[UNI88]

I read 88s post different. I didn't read it as 88 being anti-primary. Just a note on petty, extremists primarying people b/c they aren't passing the MAGA/Ulta-Progressive-tards purity test. But I can see how his post comes off as anti-primary (although, I don't believe that is his position.)

I'm all for a primary - incumbents should have to defend themselves. The problem is on the electorate who are either too lazy or too unwilling to give someone a better chance in office. Or they're too stuck in their ways and will always vote R or D b/c that's how they've always voted. I've had family members, hardcore MAGA, tell me they'd vote for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-life Democrat b/c they could never Democrat.

One man’s extremist is another man’s freedom fighter. When the constituency is monied interests and those with political access, the “centrists” can also become a road block to positive change.

Yes, they can. On the flip side, the extremists can also become a roadblock to respect, communication, and effective government.

[kalm]

One man’s extremist is another man’s freedom fighter. When the constituency is monied interests and those with political access, the “centrists” can also become a road block to positive change.

Yes, they can. On the flip side, the extremists can also become a roadblock to respect, communication, and effective government.

Agreed.

[SDHornet]

Agree. I mean this is the point of a primary, right?

Exactly the point. Bernie was a prime example in '16 by exposing a lot of cracks in what the Democrats thought was a solid foundation for a shoe-in election

Bernie was the test run on how to rig the election. The DNC learned it can work.

[houndawg]

Exactly the point. Bernie was a prime example in '16 by exposing a lot of cracks in what the Democrats thought was a solid foundation for a shoe-in election

Bernie was the test run on how to rig the election. The DNC learned it can work.

Still butthurt about those 7,000,000 votes?

[SDHornet]

Bernie was the test run on how to rig the election. The DNC learned it can work.

Still butthurt about those 7,000,000 votes?

The fake ones?

[kalm]

Exactly the point. Bernie was a prime example in '16 by exposing a lot of cracks in what the Democrats thought was a solid foundation for a shoe-in election

Bernie was the test run on how to rig the election. The DNC learned it can work.

And the Republicans are now running with it.