I agree with you. We do not need to set the precedent that high level elected officials can avoid debating and still win. We already have President's avoiding questions from the media because of possible collateral damage. Lake has lost it - but that isn't why she didn't debate her. She didn't debate Lake because she knew Lake was a VASTLY superior speaker, was more charismatic and would think faster on her feet and she knew that Lake would likely not stay within the bounds of what is factual. This is also why I stood up for Fetterman debating and it being the right call. I know he had a stroke and is having issues with his brains processing the sounds he hears and articulating his words. I also know that it is a common problem with stroke survivors and that it gets better and usually goes away. However, the voters deserved to hear and see Fetterman with their own eyes and ears against Oz.
Did Zoomers help Dems "win Nevada"? Millennials getting outclassed as voters. Sad. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/12/politics/young-voters-democrats-midterm-elections Analysis: Democrats would have gotten crushed this election without young voters Democrats have done a lot better in the midterm elections than a lot of pundits and analysts had anticipated. They’re favored to hold on to the Senate and look to have kept their losses in the House to a minimum. In doing so, Democrats have defied historical precedent, which suggests the president’s party loses significant ground in midterm elections. President Joe Biden credited, in part, “historic” turnout by younger Americans for the strong Democratic performance. A look at the data suggests there probably wasn’t a surge of youth participation relative to the rest of the electorate. But it does suggest that Democrats defied election expectations this year because of a historically large age gap that saw young voters overwhelmingly back Democratic candidates. The lack of a youth surge becomes quickly apparent when you look at the exit polls. Voters under the age of 30 made up 12% of all voters. In every midterm in the last 20 years, this group has made up between 11% and 13% of the electorate. (Other data, too, shows that younger voters did not make up a significantly larger portion of the electorate compared with prior midterms.) Now, overall turnout is likely to be higher this year compared with most past midterms. It could therefore be argued that young voters did turn out in larger numbers than they have historically, but that is true of every age group. Interactive: Anatomy of a close election: How Americans voted in 2022 vs. 2018 While they may not have made up a larger share of the electorate than normal, young voters still made their presence felt. Democrats would have gotten crushed without young voter support. Democratic House candidates won voters under the age of 45 by 13 points, while losing voters age 45 and older by 10 points. Breaking it down further, House Democratic candidates won voters under 30 by 28 points – that’s an increase from their 26-point edge with this group two years ago. This is significantly different from other age groups, the exit polls show. Democrats lost every age slice of the electorate 45 years and older by at least 7 points, including a 12-point loss among senior citizens (age 65 and older). What is perhaps especially interesting is that voters under 30 seemed to vote significantly more Democratic than those aged 30 to 39. Voters under 30 are partially Generation Z (those born after 1996) and partially the youngest millennials. Voters between 30 and 39 are the oldest millennials. These older millennials were the strongest supporters of Barack Obama during his 2008 primary campaign and eventual ascendency to the presidency. This year, they backed Democratic House candidates by only 11 points. Notably, today’s Democratic Party relies on the youngest of voters in a way that it historically hadn’t – at least not until the last few elections. Consider the first midterm (2006) when millennials made up a significant share of voters under 30. Democrats won 60% of their vote, which isn’t all that different from the 63% of voters under 30 they won this year. Remember, though, that Democrats easily won the House popular vote in 2006, while they’ll probably lose it by a couple of points this year. In fact, Democrats won every age group (under 30, 30-44, 45-65 and 65+) in the 2006 midterms. The difference in support for Democratic House candidates in 2006 between voters under 30 (60%) and those 65 and older (49%) was 11 points. This year that gap was 20 points (63% versus 43%). Going further back to 1990 (the last midterm when none of today’s voters under 30 were alive), there was basically no age gap. A similar percentage of voters under 30 and those 65 and older cast ballots for Democratic House candidates (52% and 53% respectively). When you look at these changes, you can see why Biden was so eager to praise young voters. He’s absolutely right that they’re a vital part of the Democratic coalition. Tuesday’s result, though, wasn’t because they showed up in larger numbers. It’s because those who did show up were so Democratic.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is an interesting person. Never heard of her prior to today, but I always prefer Democrats to have an economic populist message. I think that's where they should make their mark. Now of course the real reason she won might actually be the abortion issue. But still, I'll be interested to see how she votes and acts now that she's elected.
I think you're highlighting what I noted. Kimberly Yee won her race running away but the AZ GOP will never nominate her for something like Senate or governor. There are plenty of competent Republicans in Arizona that can win. But AZ GOP is run by an election denier who declared war on John McCain way before Kari Lake ever did (Kelli Ward) and the base there is all in on the crazies. Hence my point that they're more interested in self-immolating than winning elections. And by doing this repeatedly, they're speeding up the leftward turn of the state.
Yes Fetterman had a bad debate. If he didn't debate though I think things would've turned out worse. It would've given much more fodder for claims that his health was so severe he couldn't handle being on the same stage with Oz. The same about the 2020 Presidential debates. Everyone knew that they were going to be a shyteshow. Knew that Trump was going to interrupt and spew nonsense. If Biden didn't debate Trump that would've strengthened all the arguments that Biden is a doddering old man hiding in his basements. Debates are political theater and while it's true that they don't change a lot of minds the consequences of not debating can also hurt a campaign.
This is a problem for the Republican Party as a whole and not just AZ. Trump was always going to leave the scene at somepoint and most likely it wasn't going to be some smooth handoff and the Republican party could just go on with the energy of Trumpist while being the staid Conservative party of McConnell. This wasn't just Liz Cheney saying this but many others in the party warned about it. I'm pretty sure Lindsey Graham and McCarthy know it too but are just too venal to say it.
Ruben Gallego is another one of these McDonald's boxed candidates like Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and others. Go to top college, join the military to establish your political bonafides and then comeback and run for office and get lots of attention. I find the overwhelming majority of these candidates (and almost all of them actually wanted to be politicians as high schoolers) to be incredibly boring and self serving. They literally plot out their moves to develop an interesting background because they do not have one, and for the sole reason of running for public office. Just like preachers they always conveniently have some story about what made them "sacrifice" and run for public office, when the reality is that are narcissists that NEED the adulation and attention. Harvard especially, but to some degree Yale as well has been for years looking for high school kids with some academic ability and a desire to "rule" and have brought them aboard. Bonus points if you came from a war-torn nation, come from poverty, are a minority or have some sort of disability.
I like that description of "McDonald's boxed candidates" and yes agree these are people who wanted to be in elected office. I don't really have a problem wtih that though. Being an elected leader takes skill and experience so why shouldn't someone that aspires to governor, senator, or president prepare for that from an early age. Getting a well rounded education and joining the military are good ways to do that. Especially for someone from a privilaged background going to the military will get them experience dealing with people from other backgrounds they might not and could help them be a better leader.
Wait, what? These were the major statewide candidates: GOV: Lost (close) SEN: lost (comfortably) SoS: lost (comfortably) AG: too-close-to-call; Dem is up 50.1-49.9 right now. And then 2 races no one knows anything about: State Treasurer: GOP (won easily) Superintendent of Education: currently GOP leads 50.1-49.9. No idea status of the race.
No way Ted Cruz served. I could totally see him go full metal jacket as Gomer Pile,.. You might be thinking of DeSantis, who seems like the b*stard offspring of Cruz and Christie in the cookie cutter formula you mentioned.
Looking forward to the headlines. I truly expect 2024 primaries to be a spectacle unlike anyone has ever seen.
I think she did a great job of leading.... she turned the other cheek.. (azz cheek)... Kari Lake was never ever going to debate politics... she was going to push every button to make Hobbs lose her control and look like an idiot... Sometimes the best thing to do is stand still and the hardest thing to do is be quiet... Hobbs showed us all how to do both.. T_Man
Fetterman did debate and got the exact same treatment from the MSM ... which was driven from SCW talking points of all things. I agree with you that under normal circumstance candidates should debate. They should publicly stand before the voters and answered tough questions. But ... Debates may not carry the same weight with the younger voters ... who may not demand politicians debate each other. This will be a challenge for both sides going forward to reach and influence younger voters ... who do not have land lines, who will not answer their cell phones when they do not recognize the incoming phone number, who do not watch on-air live TV news, who are more pull than push when it comes to political news consumption, etc. There also may be an exception where the candidate (Hobbs) will not debate their opponent (Lake), if the consensus is that the opponent will treat the entire debate as a PR stunt, which is disrespectful of the voters, the process and the candidate. Here the exception makes the rule.
How much impact do debates really have these days? Herschel sounded like he had raw chicken breast for brains and pulled out a fake Party City police badge. Aside from the jokes that came the next morning, was he really negatively affected in any meaningful way? Fetterman’s poor performance was hyped beyond belief…you’d have sworn he was finished after that night, and well, yeah…
I think it needs to be abundentlt clear to folks that yea—-as our elected officials it has to be paramount they can be grilled on a public forum regarding their stances. It’s a bare minimum for the sacred position that comes with representing those that trust you HOWEVER It is not the case. Debates don’t matter. Hell, stances don’t even matter that much. All that matters is if the voters can connect with you on a personal level. Donald was a genius about this, he dug so far below the belt down into scrotums and what have you to find those issues that would get people riled up. Otherwise it makes no sense for the religious Christian groups to support the most ungodly man that has ever run for office
