Latest Breaking News

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2026, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

And I think that most reasonable people understand that the DCCC cannot dictate a nominee. The DCCC does not do the voting. The local grassroots voters in your district do. If the local electorate wanted a different candidate, they had every right and opportunity to vote for them. The national party can offer financial backing or endorsements, but they cannot force a single hand to pull a lever in a primary booth.

I am a voter, not a DC consultant... I'm just telling it like it is. Resorting to talking points about "cushy ivory towers" is just an easy way to avoid acknowledging the actual point about regional math. The reality of competitive swing districts does not change whether a campaign is managed by a local grassroots team or a national committee.

The framing of a campaign committee's investment as being a "dictatorship" diminishes the very meaning of the word. It's just over-emotional hyperbole. Furthermore, while affordability, corruption, and preserving democracy are absolutely universal concerns, the solutions that voters are willing to accept vary wildly by region.

What a voter in a +20 Democratic district considers an effective solution for affordability looks completely different to a moderate independent in an R+5 swing district. Acknowledging those regional differences and running candidates tailored to win them is not "caving." It is strategy.

You mentioned "reality" earlier... here's reality that needs to be accepted: Democrats win by expanding our tent, not by alienating the voters we need to reach 218. We do NOT win by running "pure" candidates who cannot win in a R+5 swing district.

We also do not win by making absurd suggestions that the Democratic Party (the only institutional wall standing against authoritarianism) has spent "25 years doing nothing." First of all, that's false. Second of all, that is a DSA talking point that only serves to demoralize our own base.