Cindy Burbank, who bested an alleged Republican plant, says she’ll step aside for Dan Osborn in general election
A Democratic challenger who said she intends to drop out of November’s race for the US Senate in Nebraska to clear the way for an independent candidate has won the state’s Democratic primary.
Cindy Burbank ran against William Forbes, who Democrats contended was a Republican plant in the race, with the intent to drop out if she won. Forbes, a pastor who has voted for Trump and opposed abortion access, is currently registered as a Democrat.
While the state Democratic party endorsed Burbank for the primary, it has backed Dan Osborn for the general election.
Osborn, an independent, is seen as the best hope to beat the Republican senator Pete Ricketts in November. Burbank wants to clear the field to give Osborn and Ricketts a head-to-head matchup, she has previously said.
It’s so weird how independants are treated here. When you think about it, the only real justification for having parties in the US is ballot access. A candidate that is not attached to any party needs to satisfy all the conditions themselves, while a candidate that works through a party has the party available to help them with that. (And in many states, I bet it has been arranged that Democrats and Republicans have ballot access “automatically” with far less process.)
Yet, here we have a candidate who is so popular in his state that he doesn’t need a party for ballot access. And instead of just changing the rules to say “Let’s endorse this guy, even though he’s an independent”, Democrats need to go through these motions to have a sham primary, and run a candidate who everyone knows will just back out if they win.
Even in this case, where most everyone agrees that backing the Independant is best for the Democrats, they still need to award a participation trophy to someone on their team.
they still need to award a participation trophy to someone on their team.
That’s not it. The point was for her to win and drop out so there wouldn’t be a Democrat on the ballot at all to dillute the vote. If she hadn’t won, there would be a Republican plant running on the Democratic ticket.
There are plenty of bad things to castigate the Democratic party for; we don’t need to invent them.
Why couldn’t the Democrats actually put Don Osborne on their primary ballot, then? Or even “None of the Above”?
It seems silly to have to recruit someone to run, just to win an election and immediately quit.
The thinking is that as an independent he’ll receive more votes than as a Democrat, as people who don’t like the Democratic party but dislike the Republicans more will vote for him in addition to all Democrats who would never vote for the Republican candidate.
The Republicans thought so too, which is why they ran a spoiler candidate on the Democratic primary ticket.
All of these shenanigans are happening because FPTP voting is absolute trash and should be gotten rid of immediately if not sooner.
If the Democratic brand is so toxic that candidates in certain states are better off running without it, that sounds like a problem with the party itself.
I wonder if that’s the real reason why that “2024 autopsy” is not getting released: it shows that the Democrats are toxic to most average voters. (And not because they are “not progressive enough…”)
I question if Don Osborne would even want to be on the Democratic ballot. It would dilute his sell as an Independent if he was running in the Democratic primary at all.
I’m not sure on the rules, but they probably do not have primary rules in place for ‘None of the Above’ since that’s not a great sell for the state’s Democratic party if that ever won. It could also be gamed by people changing parties for the primary just to vote ‘None of the Above’ for the other side of the aisle’s candidates.
My view on the situation is that this is an example of Democrats taking possibly the wrong lesson from 2024 or at least trying a strategy that didn’t work at all back in 2024. It was a bit more strategic at the time to back Independents in more Red states. However, I think actually backing a progressive and trying to educate people about a progressive platform would sell much better than some “appeal to everyone Independent” candidate which doesn’t encourage Democrats to turn out and does not encourage Republicans who like the more radical candidates.
Democrats: *do a good thing*
Lemmy: This is bullshit!
What I don’t get is: why? I mean, this independent is clearly going to caucus with the Dems in Washington, so he’ll “count” as a Democrat. He’s clearly got the support of the Democratic party leadership. He appears to be a Democrat in all but name, and the only thing I can think is it’s to avoid reflexive hatred of the (D) in deep red Nebraska. Run a democrat as an independent, in the same way the GOP tried to run a candidate as a Dem.
You should read up on William For es who the Republicans tried to get to run as a Dem in opposition. Thank whatever he lost
That’s probably exactly it, it’s to avoid the stupid reflex of “Demonrats bad” to actually get shit done.
Ugh, when we finally fix this country by ramming a new VRA down the throat of every single red state tyranny out there we absolutely need to make some kinda ranked choice system the standard
As someone who brings receipts to the claim that 3rd party and independent votes at the state and federal level are wasted in districts without RCV or an in incumbent who switched in office, this is refreshing to see.
So the Democratic party specifically beat a troll in the primary and then backs a third party candidate because We Need To Beat MAGA in the heart of the Red Wall and the why-doesn’t-everyone-vote-third-party and demmicratz-is-genosides people are pissed off about it?
Whatever.
