Wasn't this what primaries were for? (hackett)

[The Witch]

Just posted on Last Midnight

On Hackett's withdrawal from the Senate race

A lot of people are saying Hackett was not as qualified as Brown. Fine. I actually agree that Hackett would be better in the House. I felt the same way about Cindy when she considered running against DiFi.

However.

It's our job to decide who the best folks are. That's what the primary is for. Establishment Democrats have no business pressuring anyone to run or not run. They should open up the field and work with the folks the people select. This is cronyism politics at its worst no matter what party's doing it. When asked about the race, folks already in power should have said "They're both excellent candidates, and we'll see who the people of Ohio decide will be better to represent their party."
That's what Howie Dean said about it.

What's more, the influence of party leaders in this particular race was misplaced. It shows the establishment to be overly concerned about this particular "outsider" coming into the race. Concerned enough to take action. They should have had enough savvy to realize the following:

a) Their pressure would not remain in the background. Being an outsider, Hackett has no inside connections, and no reason to stay quiet about why he was dropping out. This sort of internal pressure only works when it isn't exposed.

b) The fact that Democratic party leadership stepped in makes it look like Hackett had a better chance of winning than Brown. Let's face it--if he had little to no chance to begin with, the public would take care of him in the primary. He had a good enough chance that the Democratic leadership had to step in on Brown's behalf. Now it looks like they've eliminated the more popular guy in favor of the less popular guy. And who wants to vote for second best?

If our party has lost faith in the ability of the political primaries to decide who should represent the party, we've lost faith in being the party of the people and are now the party of the establishment. To paraphrase you, Harry... I'm sure we can do better than that.

[400Years]

1. the elitist types don't believe in primaries

they also don't believe in democracy.

[WCGreen]

20. That is such crap....

All it takes to run for the Senate or the House is 50 signatures...

You are on the ballot...

You can raise money without the so-called Cabal....

HE quit...

HE could have stayed...

[400Years]

28. Yes you can run but you have to fight not only republicans but the

elitist pigs who have way too much control in our own party.

[txindy]

2. It does make me wonder why we'd have a primary.

If they ask the best or next-best candidate (depending on your POV) to drop out, why have a primary?

[jaxx]

3. This really stinks.

So much for "anyone" can run for office. This smacks of personal political agendas, and who they want in office. Dammit, where has America gone?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. No, it isn't.

The point of a primary is to decide a candidate when it's unclear whom should be the nominee. There was no such dilemma in this case. Not only was Hackett ill qualified, but there was no way he was going to defeat Brown. It would have been an incredible waste of resources.

[aintitfunny]

9. Hackett had a right to run for Senate

without being harassed by Democratic Party leadership who "know what it best". He was a legitimate candidate for the Senate. Political hackery should not come into play. If there was no way he was going to defeat Brown then Brown should have beat him in a primary race fair and square.

It is an incredible waste that Brown's ultimate General Election race is now going to be tainted by this. It is an incredible waste that the Ohio primary voters were not given an opportunity to decide who they wanted. It really isn't the job of Senate Democrats to decide who should and should not run for office. The fact that backroom politics is the status quo, does not make status quo right.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Really? Where exactly is that right in the Constitution?

Do Democrats have the right to run for office without being harassed by Republican leadership too? I'd love to have a look at your Constitution.

This is politics. It is not for the weak. If a little badgering is all it took for Hackett to acquiesce, he's ill suited for the work in the first place.

[aintitfunny]

11. And where does it say that he does not have the

right? I assume he qualified for candidacy legally, ergo he has a right to run. Simple. If in the next question you do not understand the difference between party leadership harassing their own compared to what happens against the Republicans, well that can't be helped, I suppose. Perhaps you do not care to understand why these shenanigans upset so many.

The the last statement - I do agree that he should not have caved, that is a dissapointment and if he could not stand up against the pressure, perhaps politics is not for him.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. It doesn't say the party doesn't have the right to harass him either.

Your logic is a bit flawed on this one.

[aintitfunny]

25. And yet again,

I never said they did not have the right. They have every right. Doesn't make it right to do so, however. Nice of you to fault my logic with specious argument. Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that the actions taken against an announced candidate of their own party are distasteful to many.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. You said specifically that Hackett had the right to run without being

harassed, did you not?

If he has the right to run without being harassed, you are also saying the party has no right to harass. You can't possibly say one without saying the other.

[aintitfunny]

27. The last word is yours

In fact you are correct. We shall not quibble over the rhetorical use of the word "right" any longer.

[The Witch]

16. My point is that Dem leadership acting was unwise.

Not who was better or what would have been waste.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. ...but if our leadership was acting wastefully, would that not be unwise?

:shrug:

[The Witch]

19. How is allowing Hackett to run wasteful? Because it takes campaign $...

...from Brown? Didn't Brown tell people to contribute to the combined Democratic campaign?

Edit: By "allowing," I mean "not interfering/influencing," not "giving permission"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. You really haven't thought this out at all, have you?

1) Money diverted in donors.
2) Money spent campaigning against each other instead of against DeWine.
3) Time wasted that could be used to spread the word about DeWine.
4) Time and effort spent by both campaigns and volunteers.
5) Money, time, and effort on behalf of interest groups and the DNC wasted that could be used on DeWine.
6) Additional negative scrutiny for BOTH candidates, while DeWine makes it through September unscathed.

If that's not enough for you, seriously, you need your head examined.

[The Witch]

22. We disagree and your points are well taken.

But I would never suggest you need your head examined.

Watch where you aim that sixshooter, Vash.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. There's nothing to disagree on.

My last posts were points of fact. There is no room for disagreement in those facts.

And I will aim wherever I please. If you make half-baked remarks, expect to be called on them.

[The Witch]

24. We disagree that there's no room for disagreement too. :-)

It's Valentine's Day. Smile.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Primaries, like elections, are to maintain the illusion of democracy.

And, the illusion that we have some say in how the country is run by the oligarchs who actually control it.

But, it's a pleasant illusion that keeps the servants happy.

[leftofthedial]

6. why do you hate the Democratic Party so much?

Can't you see they have a system in place that is working s-o well?

Instead of donating to the Democratic Party, I have decided to just buy crap from some corporation and let it trickle down to the DNC.

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. You can have a primary or a caucus

or a smoke filled room. Some claim that we had better candidates when they were chosen behind closed doors.

Nothing is preventing Hackett from running - party officials asking contributors to change their candidate shouldn't deter him if he's really determined.

[porphyrian]

8. That's the DLC line, until they're threatened.

Then, you're risking an election. Or maybe this was simply a good-natured tactic to win the primary, and Hackett should've realized that. :eyes:

[radio4progressives]

13. reveals what a shell game this process really is...

time to storm the castles people, oust these anti-democratic traitors.

[shance]

14. Absolutely**** This is why we have a primary. So the people can decide

who they want for their candidate. It is not so people like Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emmanual can stack the deck in their favor.

[rinsd]

15. This shit cracks me up....

Weren't alot of people advocating doing away with the primary as wasteful in 2004 and just naming Howard Dean?

And flip this around. if Cindy and Hackett had huge early leads, wouldn't there be calls for them to step down?

I have no problem with principle but for far too many its more about whose ox is getting gored.

[insane_cratic_gal]

18. They ought to let the people of OH decide that

the fact that they interfered before a primary pisses me off.