• Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    with another 370 typically considered “Safe” seats thanks to incumbency, partisanship, and superior fundraising.

    Voters in these areas are the ones I don’t understand…I’d vote for anyone “not incumbent” so the electorate has a reset for that very reaon. It wouldn’t really matter who the incumbent is nor how deep their pockets…if you don’t, you’re stuck in the rut you point out here

    Roughly 30-40 Congressfolks run completely unopposed year to year,

    with no way out and end up with MJT representing you.

    Vote 1 “Tim Bim Bustop Phatang Ole Biscuit Barrel”

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Voters in these areas are the ones I don’t understand…I’d vote for anyone “not incumbent”

      That’s part of the problem. You would vote for “anyone” but you can’t find a coalition (much less a majority) to back “a specific someone”.

      By contrast, the incumbent proved that they could find a majority to back them. And every subsequent election involves going back to that winning base and saying “pick me again”. That’s a lot easier than building up a new unknown candidate from scratch.

      with no way out and end up with MJT representing you.

      I’m not sure who MJT is. But a lot of these candidates have to win hotly contested primaries. It isn’t like the voters just don’t have options. It’s that the options they have build voting coalitions by making common cause with some really shitty media moguls and money men.