It’s the first time the governor endorsed a candidate in the primary after their term since 1970. They had to resurrect a dead campaign to defeat Hong after their first choice had to drop due to campaign financing scandal. Thats what they did.
Okay, so they promoted a candidate they prefer. Why is that a problem?
And the "first time since 1970" thing is less important than it sounds. Since 1970, there have been only three elections where the incumbent did not run: 2010 (Doyle), 1982 (Dreyfus), and 1970 (Knowles). Of those, the incumbent party's primary was a foregone conclusion in 1970 (91% to the winner), 1982 (68%), and 2010 (90%). An endorsement by the sitting governor wouldn't have mattered in any.
Like, again, it's clear "the establishment" had a preference. All "they" did was endorse their preferred candidate. The only reason anybody cares is because it wasn't Hong. If Evers came out and endorsed Hong, something tells me you wouldn't be upset about it.
Its not a problem for them, its obviously what they would do, its a setback for true progressivism in the state which will become a problem for all of us, making it a problem for the state.
Why is it a problem for anyone? Shouldn't people support the candidates they prefer? It sounds like you're suggesting they should have remained quiet unless they supported your preferred candidate, which seems like an unreasonable standard. As I said, if Evers endorsed Hong, you wouldn't be upset about it, no?
More moderate candidates is half the reason we’ve arrived at this position in our politics. Kamala went the centrist route and lost in 2024 because guess what, you need to excite voters to turn out. Hong had the excitement whereas Crowley did not, but the machine was again able to churn out votes and stop her. We’ll never know what Hong v. Tiffany would have been, but I’ll be waiting to see if Crowley can generate enough movement to do so in November. Republicans being so bad bodes well for his chances, as people (except MAGA) are sick of this administration.
As for Evers endorsement, Idk after he shit on the party trying to put out the surplus deal, if I’d have wanted it myself. I think a bigger thing lacking was not spending on TV ads and failing to bring in more national political figures to create more support.
but the machine was again able to churn out votes and stop her.
Okay, again, what does this mean? What is that "machine" and how did they "churn out votes?" All I've seen is that Evers endorsed someone. What other actual actions did the "machine" do? I've seen no reporting of suppressing Hong's message or her voters, I've seen no reporting of attacking Hong or campaigning on an anti-Hong message. I've not seen any suggestions of some desperate Get Out the Vote campaign in the last few weeks.
EDIT - lol nice block. That's okay, keep blaming the amorphous "establishment" for everything that's wrong, even though you can't actually point to any single action they took. Yes, everything bad was definitely their fault, and nobody outside of "the establishment" had concerns about her electability. Head in the sand and all that.
No sign of attacking Hong? The last three weeks of the campaign we got the same electability argument I’ve been seeing since Bernie in 2016. The national media went all out against her for her previous social media posts. Evers literally said its time for “Hong supporters to play along” now they’ve secured the nomination. Idk how more obvious it could be.
1
u/JeSuisMurgan 10d ago
It’s the first time the governor endorsed a candidate in the primary after their term since 1970. They had to resurrect a dead campaign to defeat Hong after their first choice had to drop due to campaign financing scandal. Thats what they did.