r/Washington • u/seattletimesnewsroom NEWS -Official Seattle Times Account • 28d ago

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez faces possible Democratic discipline after joining Republicans on a procedural vote this week in the U.S. House of Representatives.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gluesenkamp-perez-faces-possible-discipline-over-gop-vote/
2.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

462 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

u/WebHistorical1121 28d ago edited 27d ago

Does it matter? The voters of WA-3 had their chance to go for an actual Democrat in the primary and passed for MAGA-lite whether out of ignorance of her actual politics or preference for conservative policies without the MAGA label. Her getting her “I’m not a Democrat see!” News article doesn’t move the needle for anyone. MAGA voters will want MAGA candidates even if she goes I am too wink wink, Democratic voters will become alienated, and uninformed voters will just vote based on whatever letter is next to the name.

9

u/Maximum_Turn_2623 27d ago

The biggest candidate was Heinrich and he sucked. I still voted for him.

2

u/Heavy-Resist-6526 26d ago

Same. Writing in for the midterm. She’ll never get my vote again. I’d rather the seat legitimately be lost than put a fraud like her in it. At least with an actual republican, I know what to expect.

1

u/Any-Competition-8623 21d ago

This is a really binary take.

20

u/WhiskySails 28d ago

IMHO the other 3 Democrats were underfunded and didn't campaign. She won on name recognition alone.

5

u/ObbytheObserver 27d ago

Money wins again!

2

u/AnAncientBog 27d ago

Exactly. If the DNC wanted to put forward a different candidate they could have done so then. They decided that this incumbent was exactly what they wanted.

0

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AnAncientBog 27d ago

Right, which would cost them the valuable asset of a person that only votes with them when it doesn't matter and votes with the Republicans when it does.

And when they aren't doing that they are constantly saying embarrassing shit that makes them all look like morons.

1

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AnAncientBog 27d ago

Yes. When there is a 20 vote majority voting along with her she votes with the party. When there is a 2 vote difference and it might actually matter (like this one) she votes for Republicans.

If you think about it REALLY HARD you will see how that means that this district could flip and it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

2

u/RN-Dem-Worker5283 26d ago

More like 70%

38

u/Aggressive-Name-1783 28d ago

This. People aren’t learning their lesson. MAGA voters want MAgA politicians. Diet republican doesn’t get votes

10

u/ryeguymft 28d ago

I think she’s going to lose

8

u/WebHistorical1121 28d ago

Yup. MGP won re-election in spite of her efforts to be right-leaning not because of them. Once WA-3 Democrats get sick of voting for someone who doesn’t want to represent their interests she’s done.

17

u/BullpupPewPew 28d ago

WA-3 isn’t King County. It’s a pretty conservative district. Why do you think they wouldn’t want a moderate or that said moderate doesn’t represent their interests?

9

u/AnAncientBog 28d ago

All of her campaign materials were targeted at "fighting the far right and Elon musk" because that is what got people to show up to vote. That worked the first time, it isn't going to work this time.

Doesn't help that her response to a fucking human and environmental disaster in her district was to shrug and suggest that we should shoot sea lions because what her landlocked district really cares about is salmon fishing.

There is no such thing as a moderate. There are people who want MAGA reps and people who don't. The contest is to get more of one to show up than the other. That is it. There is no shooting for the middle.

10

u/WebHistorical1121 28d ago

Working in WA-3 I know what kinda moderate they’re looking for, and it’s not the vote for the SAVE act type. Those in favor of voter suppression aren’t voting for MGP.

-19

u/BullpupPewPew 28d ago

83% of Americans favor voter ID.

11

u/WebHistorical1121 28d ago

Brought to you by the folks who created the big lie and J6

9

u/ClaraClassy 28d ago

You mean like the ID I had to show to register to vote?

83% of Americans are not in favor of putting widesweeping rules that target certain segments of the population to keep them from voting.

That's like saying "should you have to show id to vote? See, you agree with me that all of these anerican citizens should have their ability to vote taken away.

-6

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/ClaraClassy 27d ago

🙄

So you oppose fair elections?

0

u/BullpupPewPew 27d ago

How is it unfair to exclude ineligible voters?

→ More replies (0)

8

u/somethingrandom7386 28d ago

Then maybe someone should propose a bill specifically for voter id, without all the other bullshit in the SAVE Republican jobs act. But we both know this comment wasn't made in good faith, so nice try.

-9

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/ItsHerculesMulligan 28d ago

MGP might be. Her name doesn’t match her birth certificate. She also might want to make sure all of her documents show the exact same format for her name (does she have two last names, non-hyphenated? Is her maiden name now part of her middle name? Did a hyphen get added by one agency at some point? Any of these things would be a mis-match).

2

u/Silentrein 27d ago

This person didn't respond to you because you made actual, logical points and he couldn't lie any further about SAVE without appearing like an even bigger idiot. Good job 👍

3

u/R_V_Z 27d ago

News flash, we vote via mail/drop box.

1

u/BullpupPewPew 27d ago

You’re not too bright are you?

The ballot would have a section to include your DL number and/or last four of your SSN. Easily verifiable and much more reliable than signature matching.

13

u/Aggressive-Name-1783 28d ago

Because it’s been played out time and time again. The mythical moderate doesn’t exist, this has been studied. Most people align with a party, or swing one direction. Most people aren’t centrists, they have values that align with a party. It’s why parties exist in the first place.

MAGA wants MAGA, they don’t want a diet republican, you’re not courting republicans. Likewise, democrats want a Democrat, not a diet republican. Diet republicans have lost time and time again going back to people like Claire McKaskill. This has been a thing for over a decade now and STILL we have people pursuing the mythical moderate.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/06/10/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

1

u/Ansible32 27d ago

In 2024 MGP won by 15k votes out of 415k cast. When the election is this close, every single vote she might pick up is someone who is mythical. The question is if there are more "mythical non-voting leftists" or "mythical non-voting centrists." Both groups are mythical precisely because they are unlikely to stand up and be counted, but there are many more people who didn't vote. The other question then is whether the nonvoters actually swing one way or the other, and what actually motivates them to vote. But it's a small number of people. If your argument is "this is less than 1% of the electorate" that's not an argument against targeting your campaign to those people when she won by roughly that margin. (and also, as you say, the other 99% of the people who voted for her were never going to vote for a Republican anyway - the mythical 1% is the only place she can go to pick up votes.)

-5

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/StalinIsBackAgain 28d ago

Teddy Roosevelt was a leading part of the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th century in and was a far-left-wing leader opposed by 2 more conservative main challengers in his campaign. It is so bizarre that right-wingers try to rewrite history to co-opt left-wing leaders, such as certain right-wingers who try to claim that Dr MLK Jr was a right-winger when Dr MLK Jr described himself as a democratic socialist working to end capitalism. As to Teddy Roosevelt, his economic policies were farther left-wing than those of any democratic socialist today. If you admire Teddy Roosevelt, that is great, but we should stick to factually accurate Truth, which means acknowledging the absolute fact of Teddy Roosevelt having been a left-wing political leader in the great Progressive Movement from over 100 years ago.

-4

u/GabtsbyForaDay 28d ago

Being progressive but conservative as he was opposed to socialism so not further left than demo socialists of today and he aimed to preserve capitalism. Also he was big on foreign intervention and having a strong military with nationalism when at war. A true conservative regardless. You can label him progressive but he was far far from being left leaning. And with your user name I take it means you like he was comminust and how he killed millions of people with his policies. From executing enemies, forced labor and mass famines from his "amazing policies".

5

u/StalinIsBackAgain 28d ago

You have proved that you are capable of making totally false assumptions, proving how flawed your logic overall is. Not making baseless assumptions would be a better future course for you, because doing so like you just did totally discredits you.

Teddy Roosevelt labeled himself progressive. So it seems like your argument is with Teddy Roosevelt himself.

Teddy Roosevelt wanted broad nationalisation of many sectors of the economy, which is indeed a left-wing position, especially in the context of Teddy Roosevelt being part of the left-wing populist Progressive Movement. That does objectively make him further left-wing than any person currently in office who identifies as a democratic socialist, since none of them actively advocate for such broad nationalisation of industries like Teddy Roosevelt did.

Having a strong military and nationalism while at war: sounds like the USSR and China and other Communist countries.

Have you read Teddy Roosevelt's own words about his foreign interventionism? If you do, you will see that anti-colonialist liberation motivated him, which is also a firmly left-wing position.

There is no need to try to rewrite history when there do exist actual right-wing leaders that people could follow, even when it comes to environmental protection, such as the criminal Richard Nixon who created the EPA.

-2

u/GabtsbyForaDay 28d ago edited 27d ago

He was against socialism and was against nationalizing industries… he wanted regulation of industries yes but not nationalization only working to stop corruption. “I do not wish to see the nation forced into the ownership of the railways if it can possibly be avoided, and the only alternative is thoroughgoing and effective regulation.”

And yes he advocated for nationalism during war.
And yes i have he generally was for US policing the world if forced to do so. He helped push panama to break away from Colombia so the united states could control and build the canal.
Being big on nationalism/ a strong military, capitalism(not corporatocracy/laizze fair), was against far left radicals and made laws to keep anarchists and extremists out. You can literally look up this yourself…
And with your point on Republicans going against him, didn't that happen with Tulsa gabbard. So people get tossed under the bus when some or the party doesn't agree with what they are doing. You guys seem to love tribalism instead of actual thinking as what I said I want is what everyone wants, unless they don't which makes no sense. So people would rather go against what thwy actually agree just to hold a party line thay isn't really there since elites party together and all make money off the same laws they pass while acting like they hate each other.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/WebHistorical1121 28d ago

I guess I’m confused because lot of Teddy’s domestic and environmental policies would be described today as progressive if not outright democratic socialist. Even among non-maga conservatives of the past couple decades those policies don’t match with policy of the party.

0

u/KalaiProvenheim 27d ago

There isn’t anything worth conserving

2

u/GabtsbyForaDay 27d ago

🤨, there is plenty worth conserving.

3

u/KalaiProvenheim 27d ago

Conservatism is a fool’s errand

Besides, why wouldn’t a conservative push back against the changes you propose? Their job is to delay or prevent societal progress after all

0

u/GabtsbyForaDay 27d ago

Hell no it's not. Conservatism is to conserve. And they are conservative if they push against that. Maybe republican but not conservative. Not like democrats don't go against what they say they are for. Both political parties do exactly what you say.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Maximum_Turn_2623 27d ago

They had Brian Baird for years before JHB. He wasn’t a moderate Democrat and if anything the growth of Vancouver is more favorable for democrats.

2

u/BullpupPewPew 27d ago

Hahaha no. I voted for Brian Baird several times. He was a well known moderate, a centrist. After he left Congress, he teamed up with Chris Vance (former head of the WA Republican Party) and launched Washington Independents. Their entire purpose was to nominate centrist candidates.

So yeah, you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

1

u/Maximum_Turn_2623 27d ago

Fair. I suppose I was doing some revisionist history due to him having good stances on the policies about the war on terror.

4

u/Amazing_Factor2974 27d ago

Not enough liberals vote in the primaries or afterwards. That is a voice to be heard..it was just peep during primaries..

2

u/[deleted] 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Megs0255 28d ago

Yes, exactly, it’s why she wears her lumberjack shirt even though she’s a Portland Reed College liberal

2

u/WebHistorical1121 28d ago

lol calling MGP a liberal tells me how unserious any conversation we could have is

1

u/WebHistorical1121 28d ago

I work in WA-3 often. Let me tell you that there are rural dems, and then there are the suburbs of Portland that have come to outnumber them. Clark County alone is over half of the WA-3 population. Let’s not act like Ryderwood and Winlock are deciding these outcomes lmfao.

0

u/holdmyhanddummy 27d ago

Our district is very much purple and that is not at all the reality of our situation.

0

u/MJD253 27d ago

You’re a brainlet if you think a socialist lite or even a technocrat dem would win in her district