Voting Day in the United States

[Wahoo Redux]

From this thread, it seems the liberal leaning members are willing to accept this is bad practice by the Dems and do not support it, while the Repubs simply deflect rather than simply admitting there is a rotten core (or segment) in their party. 

The Democrats are not perfect, but modern Republicans are on a while different level.

I do not support what the Dems did.  I think it is unethical and it is about to open a yuge can of Pandora worms we do not want open.  We need regulations about campaign advertising.

The Republicans of this era are frightening.  Some of the hysterical commentary on this very thread illustrates this dynamic.

[mahagonny]

From this thread, it seems the liberal leaning members are willing to accept this is bad practice by the Dems and do not support it, while the Repubs simply deflect rather than simply admitting there is a rotten core (or segment) in their party. 

The Democrats are not perfect, but modern Republicans are on a while different level.

I do not support what the Dems did.  I think it is unethical and it is about to open a yuge can of Pandora worms we do not want open.  We need regulations about campaign advertising.

The Republicans of this era are frightening.  Some of the hysterical commentary on this very thread illustrates this dynamic.

May I quote you?

[Wahoo Redux]

From this thread, it seems the liberal leaning members are willing to accept this is bad practice by the Dems and do not support it, while the Repubs simply deflect rather than simply admitting there is a rotten core (or segment) in their party. 

The Democrats are not perfect, but modern Republicans are on a while different level.

I do not support what the Dems did.  I think it is unethical and it is about to open a yuge can of Pandora worms we do not want open.  We need regulations about campaign advertising.

The Republicans of this era are frightening.  Some of the hysterical commentary on this very thread illustrates this dynamic.

May I quote you?

Yes, honey, you may.

Remember, not everyone is a zealot.  Zealots usually think everyone is zealot like they are----zealots do not seem capable of seeing gray areas.  But this is not the case.  Most of us are not zealots.

[jimbogumbo]

From this thread, it seems the liberal leaning members are willing to accept this is bad practice by the Dems and do not support it, while the Repubs simply deflect rather than simply admitting there is a rotten core (or segment) in their party. 

The Democrats are not perfect, but modern Republicans are on a while different level.

I do not support what the Dems did.  I think it is unethical and it is about to open a yuge can of Pandora worms we do not want open.  We need regulations about campaign advertising.

The Republicans of this era are frightening.  Some of the hysterical commentary on this very thread illustrates this dynamic.

I thought for sure it was going to be this line mahag wanted.

[mahagonny]

No thank you. There's nothing new or surprising about that. We already know that tribes square off and fight after declaring 'we are threatened.' It's not that often that they charge in and announce 'we want to dominate through force or intimidation because we believe we can.'

However, saying ceremoniously 'I don't support what was done by the party I always vote straight blue for' on an anonymous forum -- that's got some entertaining irony.

[jimbogumbo]

No thank you. There's nothing new or surprising about that. We already know that tribes square off and fight after declaring 'we are threatened.' It's not that often that they charge in and announce 'we want to dominate through force or intimidation because we believe we can.'

However, saying ceremoniously 'I don't support what was done by the party I always vote straight blue for' on an anonymous forum -- that's got some entertaining irony.

I think it's just honesty, and not all that rare for supporters on either side. IMO the R's would do so just as often if the opportunity would present itself.

If this story is any indicator, it will continue to be done: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked

[dismalist]

No thank you. There's nothing new or surprising about that. We already know that tribes square off and fight after declaring 'we are threatened.' It's not that often that they charge in and announce 'we want to dominate through force or intimidation because we believe we can.'

However, saying ceremoniously 'I don't support what was done by the party I always vote straight blue for' on an anonymous forum -- that's got some entertaining irony.

I think it's just honesty, and not all that rare for supporters on either side. IMO the R's would do so just as often if the opportunity would present itself.

If this story is any indicator, it will continue to be done: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked

This is fascinating! Let's look at this symmetrically. Each party spends dollars on promoting losers in the other's primaries. They spend dollars until the probability of the loser winning the primary is big enough to remove enough votes in the general to elect one's own candidate. Compare this to spending dollars to promote one's own candidate to get enough votes to win. Adjust spending to make the last dollar get you the same number of votes.

To put this into words, what are the relative benefits of promoting one's own candidate compared to sabotaging the other side's?

Mercy, that's a tough calculation, fraught with uncertainty.  Let me surmise that it pays to a degree only in places where the other's loser is completely out of touch with the median in the general. But if the median in the opponent's primary is not too far from the median in the general, this no woik.

My tentative conclusion: Because everybody knows this, the threat of it is an instrument to move primary candidates closer to the center!

A good idea, in other words.

As for the ethics: All this is fine if voters know where the cash is coming from.

[mahagonny]

No thank you. There's nothing new or surprising about that. We already know that tribes square off and fight after declaring 'we are threatened.' It's not that often that they charge in and announce 'we want to dominate through force or intimidation because we believe we can.'

However, saying ceremoniously 'I don't support what was done by the party I always vote straight blue for' on an anonymous forum -- that's got some entertaining irony.

I think it's just honesty, and not all that rare for supporters on either side. IMO the R's would do so just as often if the opportunity would present itself.

If this story is any indicator, it will continue to be done: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked

Right. Assuming you mean this seriously, so who would we boost, who is more radical left than Raphael Warnock.

[jimbogumbo]

No thank you. There's nothing new or surprising about that. We already know that tribes square off and fight after declaring 'we are threatened.' It's not that often that they charge in and announce 'we want to dominate through force or intimidation because we believe we can.'

However, saying ceremoniously 'I don't support what was done by the party I always vote straight blue for' on an anonymous forum -- that's got some entertaining irony.

I think it's just honesty, and not all that rare for supporters on either side. IMO the R's would do so just as often if the opportunity would present itself.

If this story is any indicator, it will continue to be done: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked

Right. Assuming you mean this seriously, so who would we boost, who is more radical left than Raphael Warnock.

I do mean it seriously. But, unlike you, I don't think the D's nominated anyone as nutty as the R's did for statewide contests. By nutty I mean the governor candidates like those in CO, PA, MN and WI, and some of the absolutelutely crazy AG candidates. Anyone who advocates a Christian nation state (not I am a church going Christian), or that schools are installing litter boxes for students identifying as furrys, or is a neoNazi qualifies as nutty in my book.

I thought Walker unqualified not by his abortion issues, but rather his obvious mental issues and violence against ex-wives. He also lies in ways that might make President Trump blush in admiration (#1 in hs class, #1 in college class, okay didn't graduate). To be fair I don't know if they are lies or a manifestation of hi personality dissociative disorder.

[mahagonny]

No thank you. There's nothing new or surprising about that. We already know that tribes square off and fight after declaring 'we are threatened.' It's not that often that they charge in and announce 'we want to dominate through force or intimidation because we believe we can.'

However, saying ceremoniously 'I don't support what was done by the party I always vote straight blue for' on an anonymous forum -- that's got some entertaining irony.

I think it's just honesty, and not all that rare for supporters on either side. IMO the R's would do so just as often if the opportunity would present itself.

If this story is any indicator, it will continue to be done: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked

Right. Assuming you mean this seriously, so who would we boost, who is more radical left than Raphael Warnock.

I do mean it seriously. But, unlike you, I don't think the D's nominated anyone as nutty as the R's did for statewide contests. By nutty I mean the governor candidates like those in CO, PA, MN and WI, and some of the absolutelutely crazy AG candidates. Anyone who advocates a Christian nation state (not I am a church going Christian), or that schools are installing litter boxes for students identifying as furrys, or is a neoNazi qualifies as nutty in my book.

I thought Walker unqualified not by his abortion issues, but rather his obvious mental issues and violence against ex-wives. He also lies in ways that might make President Trump blush in admiration (#1 in hs class, #1 in college class, okay didn't graduate). To be fair I don't know if they are lies or a manifestation of hi personality dissociative disorder.

I see you want to keep going on about Walker. Fidel Castro isn't available anyway.

Well, maybe he spends part of his waking hours believing he's President Biden, and so must make things up about his academic career.

I didn't say I'd vote for Walker in primary. I say I'd vote for him against Warnock. He at least has matured enough to understand that, as Sowell explains, #2 is the truth:
Worldview #1, held by progressives: good things happen automatically and bad things happen because people are ganging up on you.
Worldview #2, held by conservatives: good things happen because people are planning, thinking, working, caring for themselves and others, going to bed early, staying away from crack, crime and unwanted pregnancy as much as possible, and generally putting some faith in community, family, common sense, maybe even God. Bad things happen all the time to everyone, because that's life.
Walker if he wins will just be another stop-the-chaos pro-republican vote. I don't see him stirring things up. Warnock is energetic radical, full of hate and persuasive with his in-crowd. He is also, in all probability, a believer in worldview #2, because he's not exactly stupid, but a clear peddler of worldview #1 for his race-baiting enterprise, and probably another oppressor of Black Americans by way of his defeatism, negativity and characterization of white people as the enemy.

[jimbogumbo]

All I meant was that Walker isn't in the group I was talking about. Sorry that bothers you, but que sera I guess.

FWIW there are several Senators already that I think are unqualified. Tuberville, Kennedy and Johnson on the R's, Menendez and Feinstein on the D's.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, maybe he spends part of his waking hours believing he's President Biden, and so must make things up about his academic career.

Warnock is energetic radical, full of hate and persuasive with his in-crowd. He is also, in all probability, a believer in worldview #2, because he's not exactly stupid, but a clear peddler of worldview #1 for his race-baiting enterprise, and probably another oppressor of Black Americans by way of his defeatism, negativity and characterization of white people as the enemy.

Conservatives simply cannot look at their own candidates. 

[jimbogumbo]

Conservatives simply cannot look at their own candidates.

McConnell clearly did.

[mahagonny]

All I meant was that Walker isn't in the group I was talking about. SorRy that bothers you, but sue sera I guess.

I think we agree on that. I think the R's favored Walker because democrats believe they can tar any white republican, most especially southern. as 'a racist' irrespective of his platform or history, and sometimes it works on swing voters, and of course nearly always with their party. Having adopted black children from the third world makes one even more 'a racist colonizer.'

[jimbogumbo]

Respectfully, I'll disagree with the above. I think Walker was nominated quite simply because of President Trump's endorsement.