Voting Day in the United States

[dismalist]

Voted by mail, which is the norm in my state. We love it because we can sit down with the Voter's Pamphlet and really weigh the issues as we go.

A "Voter's Pamphlet" sounds potentially very good. Wish all states had that.

I sampled some candidates across parties in the "Voter's Pamphlet". The content consists of the usual campaign messaging. The pamphlets seem to me to be a method to reduce the costs of politicians to get their messages out, substituting tax money for donations.

[mahagonny]

I'll tell what would help. A pamphlet that tells you what each candidate would like to do once elected, that they might be able to do, that they're not telling you. They could have told us about Joe Biden's planned Ministry of Truth, for example.

The dems managed to smear Herschel Walker for paying for his girlfriend's abortion, which is what about half of them would have done. got to admit, they're good at what they do.

[mamselle]

Voted by mail, which is the norm in my state. We love it because we can sit down with the Voter's Pamphlet and really weigh the issues as we go.

A "Voter's Pamphlet" sounds potentially very good. Wish all states had that.

I sampled some candidates across parties in the "Voter's Pamphlet". The content consists of the usual campaign messaging. The pamphlets seem to me to be a method to reduce the costs of politicians to get their messages out, substituting tax money for donations.

The LWV, which has in the past published newsprint pamphlets and now includes online summaries, as noted above, is a private organization, not a governmental one.

M.

[Juvenal]

I was given a slightly torn ballot, maybe the first off the pad of them for my district.  The machine kept rejecting it (so it said!); the helpful scrutineers tried sliding it in this way and that way.  I give credit now for my candidate winning.  I must have voted several times.  All those votes!  I saw no one standing by glaring suspiciously, open carrying, but alert the stolen post-election squadron!

[dismalist]

Voted by mail, which is the norm in my state. We love it because we can sit down with the Voter's Pamphlet and really weigh the issues as we go.

A "Voter's Pamphlet" sounds potentially very good. Wish all states had that.

I sampled some candidates across parties in the "Voter's Pamphlet". The content consists of the usual campaign messaging. The pamphlets seem to me to be a method to reduce the costs of politicians to get their messages out, substituting tax money for donations.

The LWV, which has in the past published newsprint pamphlets and now includes online summaries, as noted above, is a private organization, not a governmental one.

M.

I was referring to https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/Voters-Pamphlet.aspx, not League of Women Voters. LWV can do what it pleases in my book. Oregon.gov is a cost shifting exercise.

[jimbogumbo]

This what you get in Colorado. It is only about referenda, not candidates. It was REALLY useful.

https://leg.colorado.gov/content/initiatives/initiatives-blue-book-overview/ballot-information-booklet-blue-book

[Kron3007]

The dems managed to smear Herschel Walker for paying for his girlfriend's abortion, which is what about half of them would have done. got to admit, they're good at what they do.

Perhaps they would have, but they are not the ones running on an anti-abortion campaign.  Do you really not see the difference or hypocracy?

[mahagonny]

The dems managed to smear Herschel Walker for paying for his girlfriend's abortion, which is what about half of them would have done. got to admit, they're good at what they do.

Perhaps they would have, but they are not the ones running on an anti-abortion campaign.  Do you really not see the difference or hypocracy?

What I suspect is that he regrets being on board with the abortion, or abortions if there was more than one, and his role in the decision. What he should have done was come clean about the past and explain that he learned from the experience and how he felt about it afterwards, and now he's running on a campaign that best represents his beliefs. He was a problematic choice at the time, but the republicans probably figured any white Christian southerner would be told by Warnock in so many words that he needs to go to church and confess his original sin of committing mass oppression, with  the democrats cheering. But Warnock's smarter than they figured. He concealed his racism enough throughout the campaign, and the personal attacks against Walker kept him off guard. They should have run one of the other guys or gals available who could have handled themselves better.
Warnock has a slew of vulnerabilities. The half-brother cop running a cocaine ring, then Warnock complaining he was sentenced wrong because of his race. Driving over his wife's foot with his car. Evicting tenants late with the rent while crying about the inequitableness of society. Covering up for accused child molesters in his religious kiddie camp. Missed opportunities by the repubs. Loves Fidel Castro. Hates cops, excepting his criminal half-brother. the right candidate could make mincemeat out of him, if they were lucky.
ETA: where some of the repubs err: the potential impact of showing that black people who understand white america doesn't hate them are often inclined to discover the appeal of conservative values is blunted by the democrat political strategists who just say 'Uncle Tom.'  The smear governor Tim that way, Clarence Thomas, Larry Elder. It works. So why bother running a black candidate unless they are truly great candidates instead of just good enough ones, I wonder.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Abortion is murder!

Except when Republican politicians do it, then it's nbd!

[Sun_Worshiper]

In all seriousness, Republicans have read the room all wrong. Trump won in 2016 because Clinton was a terrible candidate. Republican leadership misunderstood this and instead decided that actually Trump and Trumpism are very popular and people in swing states must want snarling fascists, culture warriors, and celebrity know-nothings to represent them. The electorate pushed back in 2018, 2020, and in 2022, robbing Rs of what should have been big wins in two of those years (showing last night was really bad, given fundamentals in Republicans' favor). Hopefully some Rs will see the light and start moving away from Trump, but he's not going to make it easy for them.

[ciao_yall]

Voted by mail, which is the norm in my state. We love it because we can sit down with the Voter's Pamphlet and really weigh the issues as we go.

A "Voter's Pamphlet" sounds potentially very good. Wish all states had that.

I sampled some candidates across parties in the "Voter's Pamphlet". The content consists of the usual campaign messaging. The pamphlets seem to me to be a method to reduce the costs of politicians to get their messages out, substituting tax money for donations.

Ours in CA is pretty good.

Candidates put a statement and who their endorsers are. Generally pretty anodyne.

There is a simplified, objective explanation of what the bill does, and what a YES/NO vote will mean. The rest is arguments in favor/against, and who is endorsing/opposed. Those are full of hyperbole but at least it requires the writer to put their name/organization with it. Anything vague like "Citizens for a Better California" is immediately suspect. It's not like they are running against the "Citizens for a Worse California."

[ciao_yall]

In all seriousness, Republicans have read the room all wrong. Trump won in 2016 because Clinton was a terrible candidate. Republican leadership misunderstood this and instead decided that actually Trump and Trumpism are very popular and people in swing states must want snarling fascists, culture warriors, and celebrity know-nothings to represent them. The electorate pushed back in 2018, 2020, and in 2022, robbing Rs of what should have been big wins in two of those years (showing last night was really bad, given fundamentals in Republicans' favor). Hopefully some Rs will see the light and start moving away from Trump, but he's not going to make it easy for them.

MAGAs are reliable voters. So... there's that.

[Sun_Worshiper]

In all seriousness, Republicans have read the room all wrong. Trump won in 2016 because Clinton was a terrible candidate. Republican leadership misunderstood this and instead decided that actually Trump and Trumpism are very popular and people in swing states must want snarling fascists, culture warriors, and celebrity know-nothings to represent them. The electorate pushed back in 2018, 2020, and in 2022, robbing Rs of what should have been big wins in two of those years (showing last night was really bad, given fundamentals in Republicans' favor). Hopefully some Rs will see the light and start moving away from Trump, but he's not going to make it easy for them.

MAGAs are reliable voters. So... there's that.

That's a big part of the problem for the party. The primary voters want the most extreme candidates, but the electorate does not. Dems have some similar dynamics, but moderate wing of the party has done a relatively good job marginalizing the left.

[dismalist]

The primary voters want the most extreme candidates, but the electorate does not.

That problem never arose in the smoke filled rooms in which candidates were chosen before the rampant primaries.

[Sun_Worshiper]

The primary voters want the most extreme candidates, but the electorate does not.

That problem never arose in the smoke filled rooms in which candidates were chosen before the rampant primaries.

There is something to be said for elite control of candidate selection. No approach is perfect, of course, but this would be better for keeping populism at bay.