While true, I think people misunderstand lobbying to some degree. There's the bribery/money influence, but there's also the policy influence - and that is most powerful on new members. Some random newbie who's elected to Congress has no real understanding of the intricacies of most political issues going on in the country - and lobbyists are the ones that educate them. So the more freshman you have, the more actual political influence lobbyists will have. For most people, when you list your favorite House and Senate members, they likely aren't going to be freshman. And if they are, you probably want them to get to stay in Congress instead of being booted out for more Cawthornes and Boeberts and Greens. Career politicians are certainly a problem - but there has to be some middle ground in there to get an effective govenrment. You need institutional knowledge or Congress becomes even more easily corruptible.
I think people waaaaaay underestimate Fetterman - if the Dems had 200 Fettermans across the country, they'd be winning all over the place. He's a far-left candidate that knows how to appeal to the voters the Democrats have left behind. I think he wins PA easily, even in a big GOP year. And I agree the Dems have a surprisingly good chance to hold the Senate (and maybe even gain a seat) - they'll lose the House badly, unfortunately, so they still won't be able to accomplish anything.
Part of the problem with having 200 Fettermans is that a big part of Fetterman's appeal is that he is unique and comes off as authentic. If many other politicians tried to copy him I don't think that would work. For example Tim Ryan in OH tried running sort of like Fetterman, as a down to Earth regular guy who loved baseball and would campaign in a Browns' Shirt and backward baseball cap. That went disastrously for him in his Presidential run. We'll see how it goes in his Senate run. The lesson from Fetterman that I think Democrats should take is the willingness to campaign everywhere including places that don't lean towards Democrats. Also be forthright about your views. Pete Buttigieg also did that including doing a Fox News townhall. While it wasn't enough to get him to the nomination it got a 38 year old mayor of a small city in Indiana a prominent cabinet position and someone to look for in future elections.
Absolutely. I don't mean current Democrats should try to copy Fetterman. He doesn't just come across as authentic - he actually IS authentic. Dems need to recruit more candidates like that instead of candidates who try to say and do what the consultants think they should do. Go find people who have liberal views but actually understand rural and lost voters. It's something the GOP does really well, even if their authentic candidates are actually insane.
Vulnerable House Democrats urge action to prevent ObamaCare premium hike this fall https://thehill.com/news/house/3498...-to-prevent-obamacare-premium-hike-this-fall/
Damn, Perdue getting absolutely demolished. Kemp getting 72% of the vote right now. I do wonder if in national elections Trump will hurt more of his candidates than help, conservatives really downplay how many people hate him. It's one thing for his candidates to win red districts or republican primaries, another thing for them to win in more contested areas or against actual opposition or a race where independents could decide it. Also wonder if this will motivate Pence to fight a bit more against Trump
Well, the opposition party is supposed to win in the midterms, it's like freethrows, you're supposed to make both. It literally is nothing to brag about, the country almost by default just votes for the opposition party, it only becomes an issue if you don't hit both of your freethrows. But what the GOP will do about Trump is certainly super relevant in the long term. That a candidate that he backed so heavily lost so heavily and in a race he put a lot of energy into should be pretty alarming for a party that looks like it will be forced to lean on him in 2024. I really think the GOP should be really careful about using their Trump card, it's not going to play well in every election. The Pennsylvania elections will be a big test of that actually.
No, exactly how batshit crazy the elected republicans are will also matter, a lot. Are they "big lie" republicans, jewish space laser types, holocaust deniers? Y'all have some special peeps.
SG doesn't think Trump trying to overthrow the government was a big deal, so pretty sure he thinks all of the above are non-issues.
I have no dog in this fight. I want every bad Republican to lose just as much as I want every bad Democrat to lose. Both parties are filled with bad politicians. I am not going to apologize because you insist on swinging for every crappy person in your party.
A serious response to your trolling; I don't think Trump was trying to over throw the government. Trump thrives on chaos and its exactly what he got.
Ken Paxton has demolished George P. Bush in the Republican runoff for Attorney General. This is a seminal event that clearly ends the ascendancy of the establishment neocons and the Bush dynasty here in Texas, and with that, nationally as well. The meaning of this is is a much bigger deal than just the outcome of this one race. George P. Bush’s defeat could be the end of the line for a four-generation political dynasty Bush’s loss marks what will soon be the end of an eight-year stint as a statewide elected official, after serving back-to-back terms as land commissioner. He continues to serve until the end of the year. But more significantly, it heralds a shift in the Texas Republican politics away from the pro-business establishment and toward a more populist, combative and harsh style of politics. Bush’s defeat also notches another victory for former president Donald Trump, who has clashed with the Bush family for years and who repeatedly expressed his support for Paxton in the attorney general race. This defeat could mark the end of a four-generation political dynasty, and the end of an era of Texas politics that began when the first George Bush moved to Odessa in 1948. “The Bush family name is essentially what the Romanov family name is in Russia,” said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University. “There’s still somebody out there claiming to be czar but nobody’s listening.” {more at the link} The article ends by trying to make the case that George P. Bush is down but not out and that the Bush dynasty will likely revive sometime in the future. Maybe, maybe not. But right now, not very many people care.
We agree on the first parts, and no apologies needed. If I wasn't fair to lump you with a party, you're similarly unfair. I've voted for Repubs, put their signs in my yard. Even in SF, I have voted against Dems. I've also voted for independents, greens, and libertarians. I can definitely label myself a moderate, but in these times, with the Yuge Lie and a vicious strain of pre-Enlightenment thinking? Yeah, I won't apologize for aligning myself against that. It's time to be counted. Cheers.
Yeah, he likes chaos. But you seriously think, if Arizona and Georgia, for instance, had substituted electors that overturned their popular votes, and/or if Pence had interrupted the counting of votes to declare Trump the winner of the 2020 election... that Trump would have said, "nah, that's okay, give it to Joe. I was just kidding"? I think he would have stayed in office if given half the chance, election be damned, and he was just a handful of honest people away from pulling it off. Anyway, not a productive line of discussion. Best wishes.
There is a difference between trying to over throw a government vs using every dirty trick in the book to legally win an election. The latter is what I expect every person in power to do. Extremist beliefs muddle the waters into allowing those to take advantage of marginal victories that have massive impacts. You dont want to be the boy crying wolf. These days, I am leaning from not caring if the wolf shows up to hoping the wolf actually shows up. I dont care if the extremist get culled.
Subb Subbing in different electors isn't a legal trick. Trump tried cheat democracy. That isn't crying wolf.
Midterms will be about 3 main things 1. Economy: advantage, R 2. Abortion: advantage, D 3. Gun Rights: advantage R or D depending on which group shows up to vote for their preference The Rs had it in the bag when it came to be just about the economy, the last thing they want is for more issues to be at stake
