By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I didn't wanna say anything before because I kinda like Rab's angsty spirit, but yeah, I've found it easy to see why Shontel Brown won this contest. Though Brown was called the "establishment" candidate in this race, I feel that that descriptor is, in certain spiritual senses, a bit misleading. It makes it sound as though she had some kind of starting advantage here when, in reality, Nina Turner was the national celebrity figure in this race, whereas Brown, the victor, was just some local city council member who up until last month was known only in her district.

Nina Turner was a co-chair of Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign, the head of his Our Revolution activist group, and a former Majority Whip in the Ohio state senate for six years. She (Turner) enjoyed celebrity endorsements of her own, including those of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Justice Democrats, to name a few, and despite her claims to have been defeated by big money from "special interests", in reality enjoyed a huge campaign fundraising advantage. Turner indeed enjoyed lots of support. Most of it, however, was in California, not, you know, Ohio where she was running.

Spoiler!

"As of the first quarter fundraising reports released in April, Turner had raised about $2.2 million to Brown's $680,000. Turner's campaign said last week that it raised another $930,000 in June alone. Brown's campaign, while not giving a monthly total, touted $162,808 in donations raised 24 hours after receiving a late-June endorsement from Rep. James Clyburn. The South Carolina Democrat helped President Joe Biden pull ahead with his endorsement in the 2020 presidential primary.

The lion's share of Turner's early fundraising support came from California donors (2.2 times what she raised from Ohio donors, according to the Federal Election Commission) as progressives across the nation look to Ohio's special election to swing the political pendulum within the Democratic Party. Brown raised more from Ohio donors than anywhere else, and 13.4 times more than she raised from California donors, according to the early FEC reporting."


A month ago, Turner concurrently enjoyed a 40-point lead over Brown. My point being that this race was clearly her's to lose from the outset, not Brown's to win. That's why I say that the characterization of Shontel Brown as an "establishment" candidate up against a populist underdog in Nina Turner feels a bit misleading in a certain sense. Brown did NOT enjoy any kind of starting advantage. Furthermore, the threat of a Republican victory in the district was non-existent and as such pragmatism was an argument the Brown-aligned forces couldn't rely on like they often do in other elections. And yet Brown won anyway.

There were technically a few differences between the economic positions that Shontel Brown and Nina Turner ran on (such as whether all tuition at public colleges and universities should be abolished or "just" all of it for the 90% of the population making under $125,000 a year for example), but frankly the Brown campaign did not contest these issues, thus making it evident that Turner's principled stances on economic policy were, unsurprisingly, popular in her district. But Turner was also the defund-the-police candidate in this race (pretend you're surprised), has refused to answer questions like whether the U.S. should impose economic sanctions on Israel (not the settlements, mind you, Israel as a whole, period), and declined to endorse either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden for president even after their successful nominations in 2016 and 2020 respectively. Some of these stances place Turner to the left of Bernie Sanders and AOC, both of whom, for example, supported the Biden campaign following his nomination (as did I). It fits in with the caricature of this type of person that Turner is also a college professor specializing in social studies on the side. These are the real reasons why she lost.

I just think the progressive movement really could stand to get outside of its little online bubble a little more often these days and listen more to what ordinary working people actually want and don't rather than determining a list of positions to stake out based on what's popular on college campuses and certain corners of the internet and then fabricating ways in which all of them are supposedly broadly popular. You know? Be less elitist. Isn't that the very thing and attitude you lament so much and aspire to fight against?

Last edited by Jaicee - on 04 August 2021

Around the Network

How much of Mike Lindell do you think is just crazy, how much is just grift?

Good Lord.



Jaicee said:

A month ago, Turner concurrently enjoyed a 40-point lead over Brown. My point being that this race was clearly her's to lose from the outset, not Brown's to win. That's why I say that the characterization of Shontel Brown as an "establishment" candidate up against a populist underdog in Nina Turner feels a bit misleading in a certain sense. Brown did NOT enjoy any kind of starting advantage. Furthermore, the threat of a Republican victory in the district was non-existent and as such pragmatism was an argument the Brown-aligned forces couldn't rely on like they often do in other elections. And yet Brown won anyway.

Another look, or point of view on this situation 

According to other people looking into this, Corporate/Est money did back Brown (Even the Israelis organisation DMFI donated heavily against Turner), and the Peoples money did back Turner

Pro Turner/Anti Brown $904k (source: Dem Action PAC)

Pro Brown/Anti Turner $2.7M (source: Dem Action PAC)

In the end the Hillary/Corp Dems status quo was maintained, resulting in governance policies less likely to be progressive going forward 

Last edited by Rab - on 04 August 2021

The bitter pill to swallow for progressives is that Democrat Primary voters tend to like the Democratic party. Hello Somebody just had to learn that the hard way.



Moren said:

The bitter pill to swallow for progressives is that Democrat Primary voters tend to like the Democratic party. Hello Somebody just had to learn that the hard way.

Similar to Rep voters, they will rarely change even if polices hurt them, it is a generational thing, the younger voters tend to be much more flexible and policy driven, but really don't come out to vote in numbers due in part to work/study commitments/timetables, but it can be a fun day out for senior voters  

Last edited by Rab - on 05 August 2021

Around the Network

One of the few Republicans willing to speak out against his own party, this may not bode well for his re-election, but damn is it needed 



Rab said:
Moren said:

The bitter pill to swallow for progressives is that Democrat Primary voters tend to like the Democratic party. Hello Somebody just had to learn that the hard way.

Similar to Rep voters, they will rarely change even if polices hurt them, it is a generational thing, the younger voters tend to be much more flexible and policy driven, but really don't come out to vote in numbers due in part to work/study commitments/timetables, but it can be a fun day out for senior voters  

Excuses are only good for the people who make them.  Its the reason why the senior and Christian vote is prized among conservatives.  See, those people are motivated all the time.  The young have to much going like parting, having fun other commitments that they feel are more important until they find out their voice is not heard or cared for because they do not vote.

Then their is that mentality that their way is the only way.  Lol, such naïve thinking.  They will try to tear down the existing establishment believing that is the way forward but find out that telling people my way is better without listening will always fail.  Its like telling Trump supporters they are stupid for supporting him but then be surprise that 70+ million voted for him for a second term.

Progressives have been losing a lot and its not about their policy, its about their approach.  Jaicee pretty much hit it right on the nose.  You do not gain support by trying to tell people they are stupid for what they believe, you need to show them a better way and that requires wins.  Slandering the other side when you need their vote is never a sound solution.



Machiavellian said:
Rab said:

Similar to Rep voters, they will rarely change even if polices hurt them, it is a generational thing, the younger voters tend to be much more flexible and policy driven, but really don't come out to vote in numbers due in part to work/study commitments/timetables, but it can be a fun day out for senior voters  

Excuses are only good for the people who make them.  Its the reason why the senior and Christian vote is prized among conservatives.  See, those people are motivated all the time.  The young have to much going like parting, having fun other commitments that they feel are more important until they find out their voice is not heard or cared for because they do not vote.

Then their is that mentality that their way is the only way.  Lol, such naïve thinking.  They will try to tear down the existing establishment believing that is the way forward but find out that telling people my way is better without listening will always fail.  Its like telling Trump supporters they are stupid for supporting him but then be surprise that 70+ million voted for him for a second term.

Progressives have been losing a lot and its not about their policy, its about their approach.  Jaicee pretty much hit it right on the nose.  You do not gain support by trying to tell people they are stupid for what they believe, you need to show them a better way and that requires wins.  Slandering the other side when you need their vote is never a sound solution.

Valid points overall

But it is difficult and highly frustrating to be patient and measured long enough to maybe get short-sighted/obstinate people to vote for policies that are ultimately for everyone's benefit, some changes have been waiting decades to materialise, it is particularly galling when it comes to the Climate Crisis, which has virtually no time left to act and the sense of urgency is so immediate, it really feels like we have no time for niceties now, it's everyone to the emergency exit time

Ultimately it's the failed system that keeps re-electing poorly equipped politicians with really no qualification to govern using evidence/science based policies unlike in almost any other profession particularly one that has the well-being of all citizens at stake, it is such a risky system of governance            

Last edited by Rab - on 09 August 2021

Another Progressive is giving it a go, as usual receiving no funds from large PACs, only small individual donations, Jessica Cisneros Announces her Texas Run

We will see if the Dem Establishment moves in with it's counter candidate and PAC money

 

  



Speaking of Moderates moving in on Progressive candidates, the moderate Conor Lamb (Current House Member who I do not like) announced that he would be running for the seat that Toomey will be vacating in 2022. Prior to this, it seemed as if the fairly progressive John Fetterman (Current Lt Governor) was the favorite for the Dem primary.

I looked around Twitter for a bit after Lamb announced his run, and Twitter seems to hate Fetterman. Not sure if it is manufactured or real, but Fetterman has one particular incident which is a pretty big black mark for him:

In 2013, while serving as Mayor, he heard what he believed as gunshots and saw a black man running, and proceeded to hold him at gunpoint until the police arrived. Turns out the guy was just jogging and the "shots" were actually fireworks. Comes a little too close to the Ahmaud Arbery killing for my liking.

Still, if it were just between Fetterman and Lamb, I would vote for Fetterman based on what I know, but I don't know any of the other candidates too well, so I'm curious if anyone else has been following this race.