398

Democrats have successfully flipped a seat in New Jersey’s General Assembly in a a deep-red district that has not elected a Democratic legislator in three decades.

Decision Desk HQ projects that Democrat Avi Schnall has won a seat in the assembly, unseating incumbent Republican Assemblyman Ned Thomson. Voters in each New Jersey legislative district choose two assembly members to represent them, so the contest was a four-way race featuring two Democrats and two Republicans.

Schnall was elected alongside incumbent Republican Assemblyman Sean Kean in the 30th district.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 136 points 1 year ago

Oh nononono you don't. A former republican supported by the Orthodox Jewish community, which is heavily associated with the right-wing Israeli settler movement?

Yeah, we'll be watching how he votes.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago

Yeah, apparently he spent a decade running an orthodox organization and taken millions from New Jersey public schools (where he was also in a high ranking education position) to buy bullshit "religious science" science textbooks and textbooks on how to learn Yiddish (but no other language) because public schools can "loan" books to private religious schools...

Also using taxpayer money to pay for private school bussing...

And while he pushed for an end to vaccination exemptions on religious grounds for public schools, wanted an exemption for private...

NJs public schools are in shambles, and this asshat is taking as much funding as he can to give it to religious indoctrination centers and coming up with reasons to increase their enrollment.

And that's not even getting into all the other shit that comes up in 2 seconds of an Internet search

It's just someone else pulling a Sinema. "Vote Blue no matter who" is better than a Republican being elected. But it just leads to shit like this where the general is one Republican with an R by their name. Against one Republican who suddenly has a D next to their name....

This dude is a rightwing religious extremist who realized just putting a D by his name is enough in our political system

[-] ares35@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

lakewood twp has a majority orthodox jewish population. he probably would have won a seat regardless of the label attached to his name on the ballot.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

That might be true.

The point is everyone else that isn't a far right religious extremist had to pick between one of those and a Republican

That's the issue.

The two party system means most voters don't have a real choice, which depresses turnout, and will lead to Republicans winning elections, or best case a Dem that doesn't actually support the basics of the Dem platform like "separation of church and state" which is a very low bar.

[-] ares35@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

elections there are different. TWO seats per district, two votes per ballot, from a list of all candidates. there were other choices with D and R labels attached.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think his win clearly demonstrates that putting a D in front is actually insufficient. Had the label's effect been much greater than his actual beliefs, then his label would have resulted in a loss.

But, enough of the constituents of that district didn't seem vote for a label, they voted for his actual positions instead.

A genuine dem campaigning hard on progressive policies and messaging probably would have lost.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

What?

Seriously I can't follow any of your logic.

How do you know he wasn't elected because the only other alternative?

And if he didn't run on progressive policies like you said, what made him better than the Republican?

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I guess it's simple enough to get to the bottom of, did he campaign on democratic party platforms and messaging? Has he called for abortion rights, gun control and greater business regulation?

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I compared him to Sinema...

I thought it was obvious that some politicians lie. So even if he claimed progressive policies, that doesn't mean he's not just lying. I highly doubt many Republicans who switch to D just before running in an election honestly had a sudden change of heart.

But you're saying if he supported that stuff he'd have lost, now youre saying he did support that stuff...

I'm sorry, maybe it's me but I can't understand what point you're trying to make here. I'm not seeing any logical consistency

And I don't think that's going to be as easy to change as a letter by a republicans name.

But maybe you should take a minute to Google a politician before blindly supporting them like you just did? That's pretty much the blind support based only on the letter by someone's name I was just complaining about

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I did not say he supported that stuff, I asked if he had. My sentence ended in a question mark, because it was an honest question.

If he had called for abortion rights, for instance, then that is calling for abortion rights. It's publicly supporting that position in the public space.

Do recall, my original thesis is "we will see how he votes." I have not expressed any support or opposition to him, merely caution and a wish to observe.

[-] ElleChaise@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

How do you know he wasn’t elected because the only other alternative?

How do you know he wasn't elected because people liked his politics?

[-] spauldo@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

If he votes too much with the Republicans he'll lose party support. There's a reason party members tend to vote the same. Without party support he'll have a hard time getting reelected in a red district unless he flips parties again.

[-] Veraxus@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, the DNC has a real problem with extreme far-right infiltrators who wear the D but only actively support fascist GOP policies and agendas.

[-] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah? Examples? I can think of two senators. That’s about it.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I guess we'll see, huh? Just hope he realizes people are paying attention. Smart ones, anyway.

[-] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Lakewood is an absolute cesspool

this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
398 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19126 readers
1637 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS