494
Abdul El-Sayed (epidemiologist, public health administrator, academic, and senator elect for Michigan) (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted 5 days ago by to c/wikipedia@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I don’t think Piker was that instrumental in how good the Democrat campaigns were this time…

By the time the general came around, the flywheel was already going. But if this is the extend of your understanding or thinking, youʻve missed almost entirely the whole story and point.

The point is that Hasan backed and supported candidates months ago who were willing to break with establishment Democrat ties in a manner which actually got people excited and involved. Without Hasan, there is no Abdul El Sayed. They simply donʻt make it through the primary. And without a candidate on the table as exciting and directly confrontational to establishment democrats, there is no Blue-nami. You donʻt get a Blue-nami when its Stevens or Janet Mills across the board: those kinds of candidates decrease turnout.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 child)

    I was talking with awareness of the context of the primaries. Stevens was the DNC favourite but she was still evidently an Israel bootlicker and didn't perform well at the debate. El-Sayed got pre-primary endorsements from UAW and has had strong individual and collective support from labour union members. Not to say Piker didn't help signal boost the campaign a lot, just to say Senator-elect El-Sayed would have never gotten through the primary without him is not necessarily true, there were many axes of support that converged and primary voters also compared the quality of candidates directly. And El Sayed used the fact that gobs of cash were being lobbed into the race to defeat him to his benefit.

    I'm just tempering the argument that Piker is the primary or sole reason why we got the result we did, it's a whole bunch of factors, a bunch of rural faces got eaten between the ICE raids, more new wars and gas prices, Republicans primaried particularly shitty candidates because they were measured by their fealty to Trump. It's a bit of No Kings rallies driving people to vote as tangible action against this admin, and finally it's the Mamdani effect where sewer socialism, left-wing populism that purports to go beyond ideology to focus on making a tangible difference for everyone while enshrining rights for the underprivileged.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago

    Its not even close. This is for a podcast Iʻll be doing later this week:

    If we assume a random prior, Chuck Schumer and Democratic establishment support was a net negative in the primary, where-as association with Hasan Piker was a net positive. And not by a little. Association with Hasan in the primary resulted in a 50% better result in regards to winning their primaries than association with Chuck Schumer. Hasan picks also outperformed Schumer picks in the general by a significant margin. Their ability to convert from primary picks, to won races makes Hasan Piker definitionally a king maker. Their primary picks won their elections.

    You can have different opinions on the particulars of why it may be this way, but you do not have space to have your own facts on the matter. And the fact of the matter is that Hasans involvement, especially early, in these primaries won candidates their elections.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent