I’ve heard conflicting information if it is really that easy to just come off the ballot. My personal feeling is that he isn’t purposely trying to sneak an election victory, and Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive’s are being a little dramatic.
I’ve heard this isn’t so easy either, since we’ve had dead people remain on ballots. This was a primary though so I assume it’s ordinary to remove one of them for that… right?
This is one of those “It isn’t what it looks like at all” things.
The WFP gave Crowley their nomination, well before the primary. They have ballot access in NY, so that puts Crowley on the ballot.
NY election law is hilariously awful and complex, but the upshot is, there are only two ways for Crowley’s name to be taken off the ballot: either the WFP nominates him for another office (one he wouldn’t win, but is eligible for) or Crowley moves out of the district. Either of these maneuvers would likely bring a Republican suit for election fraud. It would probably be defeated in court…but it’s a mess.
Crowley has endorsed Ocasio.
She’s going to win that district.
He is unwilling to set himself up for election fraud civil action.
The WFP created this situation. This isn’t Democrats (or heavens to betsy, the DNC, everyone’s favorite monster in the closet) acting out of turn.
It’s a stupid situation created by arcane and silly election laws and the often byzantine goings-on in the New York Democratic state party.
She should have no problem with winning this. Crowley probably should reaffirm that endorsement, however.
Then @dionisus1122 is right. She’s being dramatic and it’s a poor showing for her to do this if she is aware of all of this. She must be aware right…
There is some thought that she is leveraging it for fundraising
I’d certainly believe it. Taking a rebel angle will also help with her visibility once elected (I’m going to assume there’s no real chance she’ll lose).
Oh, I agree. It cuts both ways, which is why I think a proportional electoral solution is the best one. Places like Wyoming and Iowa still matter, but so do the red votes in California and the blue votes in Texas.
Sadly, it would probably take an Amendment to make it happen.
Well even if that’s the case, I don’t approve. It’s misleading. We have enough of that garbage in politics not to be sniping from the edge.
I’m with you, and it is the same stuff that turns me off from Sanders supporters. Just because not everyone in the party doesn’t agree with you 100% doesn’t make them the enemy… But sometimes that wing pursues that level of militancy. They did it to HRC, and I’m annoyed they are doing it now, especially with how gracefuly Crowley conceded that race.
Being listed in the Working Families Party would appear on a separate line, farther down the ballot. The WFP is usually identical to the Democratic ticket, but not always. Most lower information voters would just vote Democratic party line regardless.
Sample ballot, assuming the link works:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.lewisborogov.com/sites/default/files/fileattachments/town_clerk/page/7211/sample_ballot_wc_general_election_11.8.16.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwimv_CygZvcAhWnV98KHXY7BnIQFjABegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw1O3FCAPAu3BEvdi8kNPDHC
Good find. Again, it shouldn’t be an issue here. Ocasio will win easily. Just an odd situation all around.
Wow that ballot is really laid out helpfully for party-line voting. On California’s, each candidate is given a separate line with their party affiliation listed after their name, in a randomly chosen order. It’s not unusual to have 10-20 candidates for a single statewide office on a primary ballot, with multiple names listing each party affiliation. Luckily, CA offers automatic mail-in voter registration when you get a DL (you have to opt-out), so voters typically get ballots a few weeks before election day and have time to peruse them.
The California Primary ballot is a joke now.
Blue wave? 🌊? Hope?
In this case we have a Democrat who profiles much better for this district. Golden has a real shot if he can attract the resources.
The upshot with a piece that describes the challenges that the Democrats are going to face this fall
Today, there are just nine Republicans who represent districts that tilt toward the Democrats, based on the districts’ voting in the last two presidential elections compared with the country as a whole. There were 24 Republicans in such a precarious position in 2006, 67 such Democrats in 2010 and 90 Democrats in 1994.
In a wave election, Republicans representing Democratic-tilting districts like these would be projected to lose their re-election bids. They are the figures farther down the slope in the accompanying illustration. (The one all by itself at the bottom, representing Pennsylvania’s Fifth, was sunk by redistricting.)
Mostly, though, the districts are above sea level. Incumbents who represent even somewhat Republican-leaning districts are generally favored to win re-election, even in a wave election. Waves aren’t necessarily as deadly as you might think.
Yeah, I feel like a lot of folks are going to end up disappointed. Or maybe not work as hard as they should.
As someone in a Seattle presinct where literally zero people voted for trump and all democrats were elected locally, what kinds of things should I and can I be doing to help at this point?