General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ocasio-Cortez backs campaign to primary fellow Democrats [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Here's what I get from your post: If there's a Democratic incumbent whom you like, but some other Democrats think the incumbent is too conservative, and they support a primary challenger, and the challenger has the audacity to win a fair and open primary, then that constitutes "political blackmail".
And here I thought it was called the democratic process.
If I've misinterpreted your post, perhaps you could explain to me how to distinguish between "political blackmail" primary campaigns and those that are not "political blackmail"?
If your answer is that any campaign against an incumbent is political blackmail, but that otherwise primaries are acceptable, be informed in advance that I won't buy it. First, there's no reason to believe that mere incumbency gives anyone a lifetime entitlement to the seat. Second, it's clear that not many people buy it when the ideological considerations cut the other way. Tulsi Gabbard, as a Democratic incumbent, has faced primary challenges, to the full-throated encouragement of many DUers. If I troubled to dig up those threads, I'd probably find that some people denouncing the idea of a primary challenge encouraged by Ocasio-Cortez were among those supporting a primary challenge.
That's how primaries work. Incumbents aren't immune, and people can support the incumbent or the challenger, as they choose. The Democratic nominee will be the one who gets the most votes in the Democratic primary.
Tossing around terms like "blackmail" and "spoiler" doesn't really advance the discussion.