somethinkdiff
@somethinkdiff.bsky.social
something different. something better. something something.
Well, because running those candidates might impact other elections.
If one Democratic candidate calls for other Democratic candidates to lose, that could be bad.
If one Democratic candidate takes positions that the rest of the party / voters can't agree on (or deliver on).
There are risks.
If one Democratic candidate calls for other Democratic candidates to lose, that could be bad.
If one Democratic candidate takes positions that the rest of the party / voters can't agree on (or deliver on).
There are risks.
November 23, 2025 at 2:38 AM
Well, because running those candidates might impact other elections.
If one Democratic candidate calls for other Democratic candidates to lose, that could be bad.
If one Democratic candidate takes positions that the rest of the party / voters can't agree on (or deliver on).
There are risks.
If one Democratic candidate calls for other Democratic candidates to lose, that could be bad.
If one Democratic candidate takes positions that the rest of the party / voters can't agree on (or deliver on).
There are risks.
So I'd say, maybe, "renovating house" instead of cleaning house:
Improving our chances in 2026 with candidates who will represent our people better, and win bigger, than old-school Democrats ever did.
Improving our chances in 2026 with candidates who will represent our people better, and win bigger, than old-school Democrats ever did.
November 23, 2025 at 2:33 AM
So I'd say, maybe, "renovating house" instead of cleaning house:
Improving our chances in 2026 with candidates who will represent our people better, and win bigger, than old-school Democrats ever did.
Improving our chances in 2026 with candidates who will represent our people better, and win bigger, than old-school Democrats ever did.
Basically, I'm trying to say:
Nothing is more important than breaking Trump's supermajority in 2026 - in the House or in the Senate.
No other Democratic policy, or promise, or politician, matters at all, unless we can achieve that.
And anything that threatens that is suspect ("cleaning house").
Nothing is more important than breaking Trump's supermajority in 2026 - in the House or in the Senate.
No other Democratic policy, or promise, or politician, matters at all, unless we can achieve that.
And anything that threatens that is suspect ("cleaning house").
November 23, 2025 at 2:31 AM
Basically, I'm trying to say:
Nothing is more important than breaking Trump's supermajority in 2026 - in the House or in the Senate.
No other Democratic policy, or promise, or politician, matters at all, unless we can achieve that.
And anything that threatens that is suspect ("cleaning house").
Nothing is more important than breaking Trump's supermajority in 2026 - in the House or in the Senate.
No other Democratic policy, or promise, or politician, matters at all, unless we can achieve that.
And anything that threatens that is suspect ("cleaning house").
This is a super key point.
In these safer districts, if you win the primary, you don't even have to worry about the general election.
In these safer districts, if you win the primary, you don't even have to worry about the general election.
November 23, 2025 at 2:26 AM
This is a super key point.
In these safer districts, if you win the primary, you don't even have to worry about the general election.
In these safer districts, if you win the primary, you don't even have to worry about the general election.
Removing our own leaders in both the house and the senate, just kind of looks bad?
The primary fights would be messy, drain campaign coffers, and expose the candidate in the general election afterwards.
Are there candidates who can, for sure, beat an incumbent Dem *and then* the MAGA final boss?
The primary fights would be messy, drain campaign coffers, and expose the candidate in the general election afterwards.
Are there candidates who can, for sure, beat an incumbent Dem *and then* the MAGA final boss?
November 23, 2025 at 2:24 AM
Removing our own leaders in both the house and the senate, just kind of looks bad?
The primary fights would be messy, drain campaign coffers, and expose the candidate in the general election afterwards.
Are there candidates who can, for sure, beat an incumbent Dem *and then* the MAGA final boss?
The primary fights would be messy, drain campaign coffers, and expose the candidate in the general election afterwards.
Are there candidates who can, for sure, beat an incumbent Dem *and then* the MAGA final boss?
"MAGA will not win next year, we can already see that."
This is the key. If that's true, and there is breathing room for shakeup on the Democratic side, ok, I guess.
I just think that we have to stop the house from burning before we can clean it. If we can do both at the same time, ok, I guess.
This is the key. If that's true, and there is breathing room for shakeup on the Democratic side, ok, I guess.
I just think that we have to stop the house from burning before we can clean it. If we can do both at the same time, ok, I guess.
November 23, 2025 at 2:18 AM
"MAGA will not win next year, we can already see that."
This is the key. If that's true, and there is breathing room for shakeup on the Democratic side, ok, I guess.
I just think that we have to stop the house from burning before we can clean it. If we can do both at the same time, ok, I guess.
This is the key. If that's true, and there is breathing room for shakeup on the Democratic side, ok, I guess.
I just think that we have to stop the house from burning before we can clean it. If we can do both at the same time, ok, I guess.
I totally agree that we have to hold our party to a higher standard. There are corrupt Democrats, senile Democrats, turn-coat Democrats (fucking fettermen), and worse.
We have to balance purity against pragmatism. We can't keep losing elections because our own voters want purity.
We have to balance purity against pragmatism. We can't keep losing elections because our own voters want purity.
November 23, 2025 at 2:16 AM
I totally agree that we have to hold our party to a higher standard. There are corrupt Democrats, senile Democrats, turn-coat Democrats (fucking fettermen), and worse.
We have to balance purity against pragmatism. We can't keep losing elections because our own voters want purity.
We have to balance purity against pragmatism. We can't keep losing elections because our own voters want purity.
The political will for single payer has never been stronger. The Democratic Party, and their constituents, will vote for it. You don't need to purge the Democratic Party to accomplish it.
November 23, 2025 at 2:09 AM
The political will for single payer has never been stronger. The Democratic Party, and their constituents, will vote for it. You don't need to purge the Democratic Party to accomplish it.
Man, this "both sides are the same" thing is so crazy to me.
The Republicans are literal Nazis with concentration camps.
The Democrats are.. "owned by billionaires".. which is bad I guess, but maybe not as bad as MAGA's 21st century Holocaust?
The Republicans are literal Nazis with concentration camps.
The Democrats are.. "owned by billionaires".. which is bad I guess, but maybe not as bad as MAGA's 21st century Holocaust?
November 23, 2025 at 2:06 AM
Man, this "both sides are the same" thing is so crazy to me.
The Republicans are literal Nazis with concentration camps.
The Democrats are.. "owned by billionaires".. which is bad I guess, but maybe not as bad as MAGA's 21st century Holocaust?
The Republicans are literal Nazis with concentration camps.
The Democrats are.. "owned by billionaires".. which is bad I guess, but maybe not as bad as MAGA's 21st century Holocaust?
so you're saying that the ACA is bad? it was a huge step forward.
Republicans want to repeal it now, but it's so popular with voters that they can't do it.
Republicans want to repeal it now, but it's so popular with voters that they can't do it.
November 23, 2025 at 2:00 AM
so you're saying that the ACA is bad? it was a huge step forward.
Republicans want to repeal it now, but it's so popular with voters that they can't do it.
Republicans want to repeal it now, but it's so popular with voters that they can't do it.
you: "we must primary every establishment democrat. our party is so bad we can't do anything until we purge our own people."
me: "you will lose to MAGA in 2026."
I think that's what our disagreement boils down to.
me: "you will lose to MAGA in 2026."
I think that's what our disagreement boils down to.
November 23, 2025 at 1:59 AM
you: "we must primary every establishment democrat. our party is so bad we can't do anything until we purge our own people."
me: "you will lose to MAGA in 2026."
I think that's what our disagreement boils down to.
me: "you will lose to MAGA in 2026."
I think that's what our disagreement boils down to.
Yes, Heritage Foundation contributed a SINGLE IDEA to the 207-page bill.. and then they uniformly opposed it and Republicans nearly killed it.
For you to say "Heritage Foundation wrote the ACA, therefore the ACA is bad" is effectively a lie.
For you to say "Heritage Foundation wrote the ACA, therefore the ACA is bad" is effectively a lie.
November 23, 2025 at 1:49 AM
Yes, Heritage Foundation contributed a SINGLE IDEA to the 207-page bill.. and then they uniformly opposed it and Republicans nearly killed it.
For you to say "Heritage Foundation wrote the ACA, therefore the ACA is bad" is effectively a lie.
For you to say "Heritage Foundation wrote the ACA, therefore the ACA is bad" is effectively a lie.
primarying them *during the 2026 elections*
when we have literally one last chance to pull this country back from complete fascist MAGA rule, why is now suddenly your moment for Democratic Party purity (aka purging)?
when we have literally one last chance to pull this country back from complete fascist MAGA rule, why is now suddenly your moment for Democratic Party purity (aka purging)?
November 23, 2025 at 1:47 AM
primarying them *during the 2026 elections*
when we have literally one last chance to pull this country back from complete fascist MAGA rule, why is now suddenly your moment for Democratic Party purity (aka purging)?
when we have literally one last chance to pull this country back from complete fascist MAGA rule, why is now suddenly your moment for Democratic Party purity (aka purging)?
because "not having those two ineffective people" requires primarying the two most important seats in the Senate and in Congress.
You make it sound really easy in this flippant way. But what I'm saying is your path, if you really spell it out, will be disastrous.
SO SPELL IT OUT PLEASE :)
You make it sound really easy in this flippant way. But what I'm saying is your path, if you really spell it out, will be disastrous.
SO SPELL IT OUT PLEASE :)
November 23, 2025 at 1:45 AM
because "not having those two ineffective people" requires primarying the two most important seats in the Senate and in Congress.
You make it sound really easy in this flippant way. But what I'm saying is your path, if you really spell it out, will be disastrous.
SO SPELL IT OUT PLEASE :)
You make it sound really easy in this flippant way. But what I'm saying is your path, if you really spell it out, will be disastrous.
SO SPELL IT OUT PLEASE :)
I'm not saying "progressive ideas lead to MAGA supermajority" (straw man much? fuck.)
I'm saying "dismantling the democratic establishment will fuck up the mid-terms.
Do you think it won't? If so, please explain why:
I'm saying "dismantling the democratic establishment will fuck up the mid-terms.
Do you think it won't? If so, please explain why:
November 23, 2025 at 1:44 AM
I'm not saying "progressive ideas lead to MAGA supermajority" (straw man much? fuck.)
I'm saying "dismantling the democratic establishment will fuck up the mid-terms.
Do you think it won't? If so, please explain why:
I'm saying "dismantling the democratic establishment will fuck up the mid-terms.
Do you think it won't? If so, please explain why:
Because it was obviously a GOP PR stunt?
the ad that the GOP wanted to run in the midterms:
"Did you know HAKEEM Jeffries voted in support of Stalinist socialist policies that killed 200 million people in the 20th century alone?! It's true. Vote for [insert GOP shill]"
the ad that the GOP wanted to run in the midterms:
"Did you know HAKEEM Jeffries voted in support of Stalinist socialist policies that killed 200 million people in the 20th century alone?! It's true. Vote for [insert GOP shill]"
November 23, 2025 at 1:41 AM
Because it was obviously a GOP PR stunt?
the ad that the GOP wanted to run in the midterms:
"Did you know HAKEEM Jeffries voted in support of Stalinist socialist policies that killed 200 million people in the 20th century alone?! It's true. Vote for [insert GOP shill]"
the ad that the GOP wanted to run in the midterms:
"Did you know HAKEEM Jeffries voted in support of Stalinist socialist policies that killed 200 million people in the 20th century alone?! It's true. Vote for [insert GOP shill]"
Heritage Foundation opposed the ACA. You are lying :)
November 23, 2025 at 12:56 AM
Heritage Foundation opposed the ACA. You are lying :)
"1. Single people do not fix giant systems, this isn’t a fuckin marvel movie"
isn't this exactly what you are demanding Hakeem Jeffries do?
"SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IMMEDIATELY OR WE PRIMARY YOU!", remember?
isn't this exactly what you are demanding Hakeem Jeffries do?
"SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IMMEDIATELY OR WE PRIMARY YOU!", remember?
November 23, 2025 at 12:54 AM
"1. Single people do not fix giant systems, this isn’t a fuckin marvel movie"
isn't this exactly what you are demanding Hakeem Jeffries do?
"SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IMMEDIATELY OR WE PRIMARY YOU!", remember?
isn't this exactly what you are demanding Hakeem Jeffries do?
"SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IMMEDIATELY OR WE PRIMARY YOU!", remember?
yes you do.
If you are saying "burn it all down!" you are also kind of obligated to say "so we can do [___] instead!"
the only thing more dangerous than an uncreative anarchist is a creative republican.
If you are saying "burn it all down!" you are also kind of obligated to say "so we can do [___] instead!"
the only thing more dangerous than an uncreative anarchist is a creative republican.
November 23, 2025 at 12:53 AM
yes you do.
If you are saying "burn it all down!" you are also kind of obligated to say "so we can do [___] instead!"
the only thing more dangerous than an uncreative anarchist is a creative republican.
If you are saying "burn it all down!" you are also kind of obligated to say "so we can do [___] instead!"
the only thing more dangerous than an uncreative anarchist is a creative republican.
listen more carefully
November 23, 2025 at 12:52 AM
listen more carefully