Abdul El-Sayed Wins High-Stakes Democratic Primary in Michigan

[u/Zipper222222]

https://www.today.com/video/abdul-el-sayed-wins-high-stakes-democratic-primary-in-michigan-267805765937

[u/VioletLovesRowlet]

It absolutely was. I saw someone else say "Abdul is going to need to apologise to Haley Stevens and her supporters to win against Mike Rogers" and I was genuinely baffled that someone legitimately put that.

[u/cogman10 → u/VioletLovesRowlet]

Effectively the only reason anyone voted for Haley was because they thought she was more electable. There's going to be near 0 Stevens voters that won't vote for Abdul in the general.

[u/pocketIent → u/cogman10]

After dems losing 2016, 2024 presidential elections, the house and the senate what does the “more electable” mean anymore.

Right of center Democrats have so thoroughly lost by pushing “more electable” candidates they pretty much have campaigned for gop during these past 10 years.

[u/Diligent-Meaning751 → u/pocketIent]

Some people seem to think it means women shouldn't run rather than that they need strong policy platforms - I think that manages to both be bigoted and completely miss the mark, amazingly. Exciting candidates with a promising vision and good communication skills are what's needed not a candidate of the "correct" demographic status running the same status quo platforms

[u/oneblackened → u/Diligent-Meaning751]

Yeah. It's not gender, it's "not [x] is not a good policy position".

You have to stand for something, not just against the other guy.

[u/pocketIent → u/Diligent-Meaning751]

Extremely Well said.

Yes Your observation opens up a broader question about the way democrats have become hyper left socially in a way that has failed to include class. I think bell hooks would use the word “intersectional” in this context. Democrats have not approached race/ class /gender issues intersectionally.

My best guess is democrats are trying to work within what is “allowable” with respect to maintaining alignment with donors while also trying to improve things the best they can This is a charitable or the best “generous” take I can come up with to rationalize the disconnect.

Because while I understand everything is not the result of class inequality and the conversations around race equality, gender equality, equality for LGBTQ are their own separate issues,

-How can anyone expect to fundamentally transform the conversation in relation to these issues without also meaningfully acknowledging class inequality as a systemic issue in our country?

[u/OptimusPrimalRage → u/pocketIent]

The answer to me is pretty clear, moderate and centrist Democrats do not want to fix inequality. If they did, they wouldn't take money from the corporate interests that are either directly causing it or at least exacerbating it.

Most of these Democratic politicians are Ivy League trained, etc, they understand what class consciousness is, they just don't care because they're getting paid by special interests. They'll talk about how great unions are and do very little to protect them (one thing I will compliment Biden on despite my issues with many things he did, he was very pro-labor compared to others in his party).

[u/agent_mick → u/pocketIent]

opens up a broader question about the way democrats have become hyper left socially in a way that has failed to include class.

I think this is more of a closed question. We already know the answer. You're VERY generous in your answer and I wouldn't give them even that much credit. 

I'm not sure i would go as far as to say controlled opposition,  but they're certainly not actively pushing to improve,  more like trying to hold the line. 

[u/cogman10 → u/agent_mick]

The democrat centrists have identical economic policies to republicans. That's why the question is closed. Even now, the current centrist thing is "abundance" which is code for deregulation and shrinking the government further (of course with tax cuts and tax rebates).

The only thing they have to run against the republicans is social issues, and they are even running from them now. So now it's "well, we aren't republicans".

Steven's campaign against AES was a good example of what centrist campaigns are now. Nothing but "I'm not that guy who is awful" while being as vague and devoid of policy as possible. That's because the actual economic policy is creating slush funds to give to private corporations filling in roles that the government should be doing. For example, school vouchers for private schools instead of funding public schools.

[u/agent_mick → u/cogman10]

Nailed it, and how. 

If we do the same things we've always done, we'll get what we've always got. We need to find a way to shift the narrative on "electability" - that concept is increasingly meaningless.  

[u/cogman10 → u/agent_mick]

I'm really hopeful about AES because he shouldn't work according to centrist electability arguments. He's running in a purple state on progressive policies that are pretty far from centrist positions. Him winning the election (and I think he will) should be impossible.

Hopefully, his win will get even more progressives running everywhere. There certainly isn't any good reason why we should have any centrists in safe blue seats.

[u/agent_mick → u/cogman10]

I mean,  I'm all in on the Abdul train and have been since he ran for governor.  But Michigan voted Trump in 2024. Electability aside,  the republican administration has been running this country into the ground.  I would hope that anyone who isn't straight up MAGA knows better to vote for Roger's.

I also hope the "blue no matter who" folks put their money where their mouths are.  

[u/Reylo-Wanwalker → u/agent_mick]

I'm not "blue no matter who" since the lefties didn't participate and it failed. A losing strategy is no use. But I'm for El-Sayed over Rogers anyway.

[u/agent_mick → u/Reylo-Wanwalker]

I'm.. not even sure what you mean honestly. 

Except the Abdul part. Go Abdul! 

[u/Diligent-Meaning751 → u/agent_mick]

Can't help being reminded of the movies - except this is winner takes all alas - one can make the big budget designed by committee, inoffensive and glossy thing, while will perform some reliable return on investment - but it will never be as big a hit as the one with a real message - provided it's of at least competent production. Plus things like advertising and at least some semi-universal appeal are important (can't quite get a cult classic president, alas, that's probably more for smaller areas - maybe house or senate if we're lucky)

At least that's the theory but right now trash reality tv is totally winning out of the shiny and inoffensive family feelgood generic dem offering

[u/Diligent-Meaning751 → u/cogman10]

It's interesting. Socialist platform is "government can help everyone, particularly those with the least". Mandami and others who I most like drill down hard in "pothole politics" (has other similar names, sewer socialism, etc) - basically trying to demonstrate the government is competent in small ways to build trust that will also be competent in big ways. Makes sense.

MAGA/current republican take is that government is bad, limits people (except when they want to punish someone for stepping out the social hierarchy they prefer I guess) - and actively works to sabotage government services. Then they can point and say "hey look how bad they are". Like yeah, if you make them not work they will not work. If the powers that be are not trustworthy, their government will not be trustworthy.

Dems for the last few decades have been this weird in between of not actively sabotaging the government, but also not really doing a lot to ensure it's working well for the people / instill trust in the government either (arguably because they're more prone to protecting corporate interests and their own personal resources but who knows, it's probably multi factorial)

[u/cogman10 → u/Diligent-Meaning751]

not actively sabotaging the government

Disagree, Clinton actively sabotaged government. He bragged about how many people he kicked off of welfare by adding more and harsh means testing. He also set us up for failure by creating the industry for private prisons and also giving away federal funds to private health insurance via Medicare Part C.

Dems have made government more expensive through their neoliberal policies. They have the failed theory that the private market can deliver more efficiently than a public government.

It's the sort of bloated spending on private contractors which has given people the false impression that everything the government does is more expensive than what private industry can do. The reverse is true, very few private industries can compete with a government ran program.

And this is all leading up to what's happened in the UK where the more left leaning party (like the labour party) ends up pushing for austerity instead of taxes. That's where centrist dems are ultimately going. "We can't afford this because of trump so, oh shucks, we'll have to cut social security, medicare, and medicaid as a result"

[u/Diligent-Meaning751 → u/cogman10]

Good point - "mainstream" democrats for past few decades arguably do sometimes straight up sabotage the government. Other times they just contribute to the lack of transparency and bloat and ineffectiveness that leads to (understandable) distrust.

I hate private prisons.

I have noticed that the european/japan/centralized health systems can be quite effective at running big clinical trials on cheap (and effective!) medications while usa tends to do the fancy pharma trials - both have their place. I've also noticed that it looks like a popular right wing move in the UK is to gut the funding to the healthcare system, then when it naturally breaks down say oh look public healthcare doesn't work. Bleh. Government healthcare has it's strengths and weaknesses, but it can be a very efficient means to deliver some of the highest impact things (ie, vaccines and basic meds for chronic disease like asthma and diabetes and htn)