2026 Midterm Elections Thread

[Pressure]

Yes, I do not believe these organizations should be putting their thumbs on the scale trying to influence primaries. It delegitimizes elections, which voters see as a problem for Democrats. The sole purpose should be to elect Democrat senators and congressmen in the general election.

Interesting. So what harm are they doing here?

AOC is not part of the leadership at the DCCC. If she were, I would agree that she shouldn’t be endorsing candidates. If you want to be part of those committees, like the Gillibrands of the world, then you should stay out of primaries.

Just seems odd. The primary purpose of these organizations is to maintain incumbents. Those same incumbents who by and large are involved in the fundraising for the senators or congressmen.

It seems you're putting arbitrary limitations on "leadership" to fit some other agenda. I'd rather you just come out and say it.


Or we can troll and I could say, isn't AOC part of leadership? She's a lead progressive. She's a leader on the house oversight committee. She's actively involved in policy making and party brand recognition.

Just seems odd. Particularly when we say party leadership is out of touched and not liked. Why does it matter who they endorse?

I personally think it's good leadership to put yiur opinions out on which candidates you prefer and possibly have a great chance of working with and pushing through an agenda.

In an ideal world that would keep you from having your Fettermans, Manchin, and sinemas.

The problem isn't party leadership endorsing candidates as much as it seems you just don't like party leadership.

 

[Loose]

Interesting. So what harm are they doing here?

A lot of harm, these organizations have delegitimized elections for democrats in the eyes of the public

Just seems odd. The primary purpose of these organizations is to maintain incumbents. Those same incumbents who by and large are involved in the fundraising for the senators or congressmen.

Yes in the general election not in democrat primaries

It seems you're putting arbitrary limitations on "leadership" to fit some other agenda. I'd rather you just come out and say it.

Um no

Or we can troll and I could say, isn't AOC part of leadership? She's a lead progressive. She's a leader on the house oversight committee. She's actively involved in policy making and party brand recognition.

AOC isn't even apart of these organizations

Just seems odd. Particularly when we say party leadership is out of touched and not liked. Why does it matter who they endorse?

Yes they're out of touch which is why they're trying to put their thumb on the scale to pick weak candidates in both Maine and Michigan

I personally think it's good leadership to put yiur opinions out on which candidates you prefer and possibly have a great chance of working with and pushing through an agenda.

Disagree

In an ideal world that would keep you from having your Fettermans, Manchin, and sinemas.

That's what both candidates in Michigan and Maine they're backing is

The problem isn't party leadership endorsing candidates as much as it seems you just don't like party leadership.

I dont think party leadership or committee should ever be influencing dem primaries, they're needed for the general election against Republicans

 

[MAKAVELI25]

I don't think I have an opinion on whether leadership should be endorsing candidates in primaries or not, but this Democratic leadership is compromised. The moves that Schumer/Pelosi have made in the past couple of years make me thing that they are more concerned with entrenching their own power than the overall success of the party. That nomination of Gerry Connolly to head the committee (I think Oversight) should earn them a permanent side eye on all their decisions.

I would have less concern over this if their decisions could be trusted, but I don't believe they can. My feeling is that they would prefer a scenario where:

1.) They were in the minority, but at least all the figures in leadership were hand selected by them

over a scenario where:

2.) Dems held the majority with a diverse set of ideologies in leadership.

For instance, if polls continue showing that Platner has the best shot of beating Collins, and Schumer doesn't change his endorsement, the conclusion I would personally take from that is that Schumer would rather lose with his candidate than win with someone who doesn't share his ideology. That is the definition of putting self over party.

 

[Loose]

I don't think I have an opinion on whether leadership should be endorsing candidates in primaries or not, but this Democratic leadership is compromised. The moves that Schumer/Pelosi have made in the past couple of years make me thing that they are more concerned with entrenching their own power than the overall success of the party. That nomination of Gerry Connolly to head the committee (I think Oversight) should earn them a permanent side eye on all their decisions.

I would have less concern over this if their decisions could be trusted, but I don't believe they can. My feeling is that they would prefer a scenario where:

1.) They were in the minority, but at least all the figures in leadership were hand selected by them

over a scenario where:

2.) Dems held the majority with a diverse set of ideologies in leadership.

For instance, if polls continue showing that Platner has the best shot of beating Collins, and Schumer doesn't change his endorsement, the conclusion I would personally take from that is that Schumer would rather lose with his candidate than win with someone who doesn't share his ideology. That is the definition of putting self over party.

These are some good sound arguments, I'll point out pelosi pushing for Henry cuellar who went on to win over Jessica cisneros was just as disastrous. It was rooted in clear corruption