Submitted by Mad-Lad-of-RVA t3_11d2gcq in rva
ttd_76 t1_jaeh5iw wrote
Reply to comment by Mad-Lad-of-RVA in Del. Lamont Bagby receives Democratic nomination in SD-09 by Mad-Lad-of-RVA
You're acting like Bagby is a secret social conservative or something.
If we were going to stereotype Bagby's base, it's basically the people that progressives claim we all ought to listen to, but whom they never listen to.
Probably no one has suffered more under systemic racism than the older/traditional black communities he represents it. They have been personally screwed by the system due to their race, and they've are fighting against this.
They don't want their fight for racial equality subsumed into a class war, which is what the progressives/Socialists think has to happen.
Look at Bagby's voting record. It's not particularly outlandish. It's basically exactly the current mainstream of the Democratic party, which in terms of bills that could actually pass is virtually identical to the progressive platform.
The only thing is that he takes money from big business, which is a cardinal sin for a certain set of progressives but which his constituents mostly don't give a fuck about.
Mad-Lad-of-RVA OP t1_jaejxxl wrote
>Look at Bagby's voting record. It's not particularly outlandish. It's basically exactly the current mainstream of the Democratic party, which in terms of bills that could actually pass is virtually identical to the progressive platform. > >The only thing is that he takes money from big business, which is a cardinal sin for a certain set of progressives but which his constituents mostly don't give a fuck about.
That's . . . That's my point.
Bagby is the kind of guy that is perfectly happy to take corporate money and to vote in ways that don't rock the boat for either his constituents or his corporate sponsors. If he's not making the news, he's happy, because he knows that his constituents will keep voting for him as long as he maintains his "community leader" image. He gets votes by going to community functions and by cozying up to pastors—shit like that. He's not going to introduce bills, because what's the point? His constituents don't notice if he passes bills or not. They don't notice that he takes corporate sponsors, either, or rationalize it as "all politicians do it, but he's our politician."
So you basically end up with a candidate that will vote with Democrats unless it's too progressive or it goes against corporate interests (but specifically the corporate interests of his donors), and who isn't going to introduce any useful legislation.
ttd_76 t1_jaf3nrk wrote
No, what I'm saying is that as a practical matter, there is very little difference between Lamont Bagby and say, Dawn Adams.
Look up their voting scorecards on votesmart:
NORML-- 100% for both
Repro Rising Virginia-- 92% for both
LEAP-- 100% for both
Equality Virginia--100% for both
Social Conservative-- 5% VA Family Foundation for both, Bagby 31% Tea Party, Adams 28%
Labor Unions-- Bagby 100%, Adams 86%
The perception is that Bagby taking Dominion money must somehow inevitably corrupt him in some major way, but that's not really the case.
Like, they speak and behave in the ways their constituencies want. Adams voters might get mad if she isn't perceived as actively fighting for certain hopeless causes so the Democrats will let her waste a certain amount of everyone's time on stuff that will never pass. Bagby may not need the rub, so he does something else.
Honestly, I would be annoyed if anyone let Adams take the lead on a bill of any substance because she's not good at it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments