Here I was thinking "oh please tell me she didn't lose to a regressive GOP tool" but seing who she actually lost to absolutely made my day.

That just makes my day. Maybe even my whole week.

Piss off ye regressive in Democrat clothing.

Literally no excuse

Thanks, I was wondering exactly that.

This is hard in some races. I just had to do a bunch of digging to figure out which state supreme court candidates were secretly Republicans because they're all required to run as unaffiliated and pretend not to be biased. So they all make the same damn comments about judicial overreach but one is talking about preserving our democracy by preventing it and one is talking about imploding our democracy by doing it. My head hurts but I figured it out omfg.

Win general elections; vote blue no matter who.

Staunchly supporting Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez during the general and then getting very confused when my party loses in a landslide two years later.

I’ve heard that stance used for abortion, so I assume it’s a statement trying to equate consensual sterilization (which shouldn’t be required to transition, but sometimes is) to the history of nonconsentual sterilization of people of color in America.

Now it’s a batshit take, but I’ve found transphobes tend to use whatever legitimate grievances they have against anybody and slap it on trans people.

The only way in which I can try and make some sense of it would be if a black person, who's mostly in an environment where there's mostly black people, and therefore the majority of or the only trans people they know are black, thinks that non-black trans people are insignificant, and that trans people can't ever have children.

Personally, I'm grading this conspiracy theory with a F. Grifters used to put in more effort back in my days.

This is politics. You don't have to say things that mean anything as long as they sound good.

It's roughly the same as swatting criticism of the Zionist Genocide by claiming that said criticism is anti-semitic - it conflates two quite different groups (in one case Jews and Zionists, in this case LGBT and Blacks) in order to weaponize the humanist moral position about the treatment of one of those groups to stop criticism of immoral actions by or (in this case) against a different group.

This is quite a common element of the gaslighting which is so typical of Liberal politics (a very common example is female liberal politicians defending the kind of legislation that will hurt the poor claiming that criticism of their position is due to their gender), though this specific example is an especially exagerated and ridiculous version.

Primary runoff elections were held on some random Tuesday, just after a recent election on property taxes and other local issues. If you want voter turnout, elections need to be held on consistent days every year, and not some weird date pulled out of a hat when voters already just went to the polls.

Better yet, give us ranked choice primaries so there aren’t any runoffs.

In Texas?

Lauren Ashley Simmons will win this district, but the things that is telling is the drop in voter engagement.

Negative campaigns often depress voter turnout. In this case, you've got a candidate espousing some really vile beliefs. Folks who aren't enthusiastic about the incumbent and don't know much about the challenger stay home as a result.

But a 10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement should be more than concering to Democrats.

In Texas its something of a push. But Texas Democrats love putting up shitty milquetoast moderate candidates and then getting rolled in the general election.

(reliable D’s).

heheheh

We try, we try...