Ayanna Presely defeats 10-term incumbent in Massachusetts primary upset
18 replies, posted
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna906441
WASHINGTON — A month ago, Ayanna Pressley told NBC News she was in “a fight for the soul of our party.” On Tuesday night, she won it.
In a stunning upset in John F. Kennedy’s old congressional district, Pressley, the first woman of color elected to Boston’s City Council, defeated Rep. Mike Capuano, D-Mass., a 10-term
incumbent in a high-profile Democratic primary.
Polls had shown Capuano, who has never faced a serious challenge since being elected in 1998, with big leads. But Pressley defied the odds to not just win, but outpace Capuano so
decisively that he conceded the race less than an hour and a half after polls closed.
With about a third of precincts reporting, Pressley had 53 percent of the vote to Capuano’s 47 percent, or 16,429 votes to 14,379. "Clearly the district wanted a lot of change,” Capuano
told supporters. “The district just is very upset with lots of things that are going on. I don’t blame them. I’m just as upset as they are. But so be it, this is the way life goes.”
“Ayanna Pressley is going to be a good congresswoman and I will tell you that Massachusetts will be well served,” the defeated congressman said.
Massachusetts’ 7th congressional district is the only one in New England where racial minorities outnumber whites and Pressley argued she could better represent the Boston and
Cambridge-area district than Capuano, who is white.
It’s another victory for the insurgent left, which has seen its biggest successes when people of color embrace progressive ideology, such as with Florida gubernatorial candidate
Andrew Gillum and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who vocally supported Pressley.
“I’m excited for her. I’m really feeling enormous sense of pride for what’s she’s accomplished,” former Massachusetts Senator John Kerry on MSNBC Tuesday night. “I’m happy for
Massachusetts.”
Note that Capuano is progressive as well and supports universal healthcare, John Lewis campaigned with him for the primary. Also Pressley isn't a newcomer to politics like Cortez.
The so-called 'insurgent left' is the last hope left for your country. Let's hope that they're compelled to vote in numbers never seen before during the upcoming primaries and in the November Midterms.
I hope so too, for the rest of the world as well. I believe that a Trump 2.0 would seriously consider military annexation of uncooperative countries.
A second term of Trump would make that seem like a real possibility, too. Canada would fall before long, of course. But we'd make the US bleed for every inch of ground.
Fallout is a work of fiction dude.
Lol
Look, i know the fucking GOP is the absolute scum of the Earth. But for the love of fuck the concept of invading Canada is so beyond the realm of reality that even President McChuckle fuck ain't that idiotic to declare something as batshit insane as that.
You're insane. Still, you guys did manage to burn down the White House once before, so could you try it again except this time with Trumpy inside?
He literally told his generals they should just go into Afghanistan without a plan and 'just shoot people'. His contribution to dealing with Kim was suggesting we remove all our safeguards there. His belief of how we should've dealt with that chemical attack was to literally kill a country's president via bombing.
This is the man you say 'isn't idiotic enough to declare something as batshit insane as that'.
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
Trump literally makes as much sense and has about as good a set of ideas and ideals as literal Metal Gear Rising villains. For fucks sake, Senator Armstrong could've been Trump's damn VP.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/8a278d10-a342-4a8e-b6f1-d5fca35ec6b4/image.png
There's a big difference between suggesting war with a country nearly every American hates and Canada.
Weird Al Yankovic would like to have a word with you.
Honestly, we keep saying this sorta shit and we always seem to end up being the ones with egg on our fucking faces.
Nevertheless though, even if by some reason El Presidente decided to declare war on Canada, he'd have to push that idea through, and get the approval of, Congress. Which, as cultish as they've become, I seriously doubt they'd actively declare war on an ally that:
we share borders with
have done nothing wrong to us (besides Trump's whining about shitty trade deals or whatever)
doesn't really have anything critical we'd want or gain by invading.
no you won't, you'll just flee the country and whine incessantly about it
Im inclined to agree with you, but how many times have we said "this situation is bad but that'll never happen" just for it to happen later?
Something is wrong with this timeline
I don't disagree. However, the question remains whether the President knows there's a difference or cares there'd a difference.
Sure, he's said more or less 'well I can't just kill them' when it came to him whining about being unable to get the trade deals he wants with Canada -- but we all know what that means with this President. That just means all he needs is one person to tell him 'You can, Mr. President. You can kill them.'
When the President, in his research for those trade deals, "in neat, clean penmanship, the president wrote 'TRADE IS BAD' " I think you'd find it hard to argue that convincing him he could do so would be a difficult matter.
yo dude lay off the crayons
Cheez, I thought we get passed this political millennialist crap.
But however only is more closer I think about to reality is Embargo-based Economical War against Canada just because Trudeau trigger Trump’s economical policies.
and yet war plan red existed for a reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
