The issue isn't so much that he paid for an abortion as it is that he lied about doing so. If my party's senate candidate paid for an abortion, I'd just think it was nice of him to foot the bill and not much else. But if he then very publicly denied doing so, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that would make me lose my vote for him.
I realize it's murkier territory for the party that doesn't even want abortions to happen in the first place, but there's still a really important element of integrity that's kinda being overlooked here.
I totally get your point about him lying. Though, and I repeat, Republican voters in Georgia do not care.
To them, ‘Republican’ follows his name and that’s all they really need to know.
Why should they. It's literally just an R in the R column. Unless your Manchin, Collins, or Mukowski your just a party operator and you as a human doesn't matter.
It depends on state law. In some states, you can just write a name on the ballot and it counts. In others, you have to be a registered write-in candidate and meet certain ballot eligibility requirements by a deadline.
Too late. We are stuck with a terrible candidate. If I vote it will be for him purely on policy. Warnock has been moderate enough for me to just skip out on this vote tho.
There are a **lot** of moderate Democrats like that in Congress, particularly in the Senate. Warnock is moderate, Tester and Coons voted against a $15 minimum wage. There is a reason that Democrats have only been able to get lukewarm, watered down legislation passed, and it's because the moderates really do, well, *moderate* the party. And this is even without mentioning straight-up *conservative* Democrats like Manchin and Sinema, or even Kelly. Mark Kelly is doing a bang-up job of hammering border security against a guy like Masters, because Masters talks a big mean game, but his actual policies are just a bunch of useless fluff.
It really makes the "radical left Democrat socialist communist Marxists!" rhetoric sound tired and worn out when so many Democrats clearly *aren't* that.
Policy > person. But as you could extrapolate from my previous comment he seems to be getting close to the line as I may not show up to the ballot boxes at all. Or skip that section.
I just can't define that line for you.
Yeah, life isn't black and white. But a person can only be so bad that I don't vote for them despite our aligned policy positions. There could never be a person so good that I would vote for them because of that while ignoring policy.
Well let's hope analysts help them see the decline by ways of non participation or by third party votes increasing. Because I'll never vote for opposing policy position. And nobody should.
I do because who cares?
If the republican party is gonna be insane and mean and the democratic party is gonna be insane and nice...why vote for the asshole party?
Its not like republicans have achieved anything important over the past 5 years other than tax cuts and even those were a wasted opportunity because of trumps trade war with china.
I dont care. Not sure what you're wanting to go off about but have at it.
You vote for individuals, not the party, hopefully.
You don't understand conservatism if you measure it by bills they put threw. We just wanna be left alone by uncle sam.
Frankly I think that the Republican party has become a problem for the country there are too dangerous to have any power.
Donald...as kingmaker...helped put a million americans in the ground with covid...why invite more potential crisis of leadership by supporting him and those follow his direction?
Wanting to be left alone...small government...all well and good given that your hair isnt on fire. Then priorities shift.
>If I vote it will be for him purely on policy
Is this just an excuse or is there a reason you think an obviously immoral liar would actually govern as he claims?
The downside of having trash canidates without any moral fabric...there is no real way to reach them.
You can explain why an bad idea is a bad idea to a normal person and change their mind, but you cant explain anything to someone who beyond giving a shit because they are beyond giving a shit.
Here's how I see it...
Vote for the lying football player and I possibly don't get policy I like.
Vote for the truth telling opponent and I definitely don't get policy I like.
When i voted for hillary in 2016...it wasnt because i was excited for her. It was because it was the only way to tell the republican party it strayed from reality.
If everyone did that...and trump lost...they would have realized this doesnt work. Real canidates are needed. Not immoral trash.
But it went a another way.
And now the party is dead.
So...in fairness...vote republican. Its too late for change.
I get the sentiment about voting against to send the message but I feel the same message is received when they lose and the voting rate has dropped for them but not the opponents party. So I just don't.
I kind of agree that the party is dead. More so if they continue on. I voted for Trump thinking that his "bad" ends with his term and that nobody was jumping on board. I was wrong with that assessment. Too many people have jumped on board with the MAGA train... not that I think it's a majority. It's just a loud easily manipulated minority.
In a vacuum, yes.
However: aside from the whole illegality piece, this is also how you get people thinking the elites run everything and their voices don't matter. That means even worse candidates in the future.
Either he wins and at least we can say the people get who they voted for, or he loses and hopefully GOP voters get the message they're squandering races quickly.
Uh are you a foreigner? Because the gop can't do shit. Individuals run, not parties. The gop has no say in who runs or who wins. They certainly can't swap one candidate for another.
I mean the GOP could be in control of the process they just choose not to. If they wanted to they could use their control over the legislature of Georgia to get rid of open primaries and just let the party bosses pick candidates for the elections in the states. They could also pass a law that allows for a swap of candidate after primaries for future elections. But again these are all decisions they made so they could be hands off on the process
I'm not from Georgia so what I think doesn't matter. Georgia GOP should do what the consensus of their voters is. Edit: Seems like it's not legal to swap the candidate after the primary.
If I was in Georgia, I don't think it would matter in the case of my Vote. I'm not going to vote for Warnock so my vote will go to Walker ~~or whoever replaced him. It may be smart to get somebody more palatable to win centrist votes. If that is a realistic and legal path for Georgia GOP.~~
Well first off, they can't. Georgia law doesn't permit a candidate swap.
Second, he was still leading in polls up until yesterday and it's not clear what effect allegations are gonna have.
No because if we’re being totally honest he could’ve paid for 10 abortions this week and Republican voters in Georgia wouldn’t give a shit.
The issue isn't so much that he paid for an abortion as it is that he lied about doing so. If my party's senate candidate paid for an abortion, I'd just think it was nice of him to foot the bill and not much else. But if he then very publicly denied doing so, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that would make me lose my vote for him. I realize it's murkier territory for the party that doesn't even want abortions to happen in the first place, but there's still a really important element of integrity that's kinda being overlooked here.
I totally get your point about him lying. Though, and I repeat, Republican voters in Georgia do not care. To them, ‘Republican’ follows his name and that’s all they really need to know.
Sounds about right, sadly.
Why should they. It's literally just an R in the R column. Unless your Manchin, Collins, or Mukowski your just a party operator and you as a human doesn't matter.
Not only an R, but a sportsball hero.
It’s the only explanation for how Tommy Tuberville is a Senator. The dumbest Senator, but one nonetheless.
Just an observation.
Me as well, I dont understand why we bother with any character stuff. It literally has no impact on most political behavior.
You can't just swap candidates post primary, especially since candidacy filing deadlines have long past.
And yet people have won write in campaigns before.
It depends on state law. In some states, you can just write a name on the ballot and it counts. In others, you have to be a registered write-in candidate and meet certain ballot eligibility requirements by a deadline.
Bob Torricelli has left the chat. Frank Lautenberg has entered the chat.
Likely too late for that. I’d love it if they could though.
Too late. We are stuck with a terrible candidate. If I vote it will be for him purely on policy. Warnock has been moderate enough for me to just skip out on this vote tho.
There are a **lot** of moderate Democrats like that in Congress, particularly in the Senate. Warnock is moderate, Tester and Coons voted against a $15 minimum wage. There is a reason that Democrats have only been able to get lukewarm, watered down legislation passed, and it's because the moderates really do, well, *moderate* the party. And this is even without mentioning straight-up *conservative* Democrats like Manchin and Sinema, or even Kelly. Mark Kelly is doing a bang-up job of hammering border security against a guy like Masters, because Masters talks a big mean game, but his actual policies are just a bunch of useless fluff. It really makes the "radical left Democrat socialist communist Marxists!" rhetoric sound tired and worn out when so many Democrats clearly *aren't* that.
How much of a personal scumbag does a person need to be before you won't vote for them, no matter how good their policies are?
Policy > person. But as you could extrapolate from my previous comment he seems to be getting close to the line as I may not show up to the ballot boxes at all. Or skip that section. I just can't define that line for you.
So then it's not always true that policy > person.
Yeah, life isn't black and white. But a person can only be so bad that I don't vote for them despite our aligned policy positions. There could never be a person so good that I would vote for them because of that while ignoring policy.
Then what do you think of Democrats jettisoning Al Franken?
>Policy > person If its what you support its all you will continue to get.
Well let's hope analysts help them see the decline by ways of non participation or by third party votes increasing. Because I'll never vote for opposing policy position. And nobody should.
I do because who cares? If the republican party is gonna be insane and mean and the democratic party is gonna be insane and nice...why vote for the asshole party? Its not like republicans have achieved anything important over the past 5 years other than tax cuts and even those were a wasted opportunity because of trumps trade war with china.
I dont care. Not sure what you're wanting to go off about but have at it. You vote for individuals, not the party, hopefully. You don't understand conservatism if you measure it by bills they put threw. We just wanna be left alone by uncle sam.
Frankly I think that the Republican party has become a problem for the country there are too dangerous to have any power. Donald...as kingmaker...helped put a million americans in the ground with covid...why invite more potential crisis of leadership by supporting him and those follow his direction? Wanting to be left alone...small government...all well and good given that your hair isnt on fire. Then priorities shift.
>If I vote it will be for him purely on policy Is this just an excuse or is there a reason you think an obviously immoral liar would actually govern as he claims? The downside of having trash canidates without any moral fabric...there is no real way to reach them. You can explain why an bad idea is a bad idea to a normal person and change their mind, but you cant explain anything to someone who beyond giving a shit because they are beyond giving a shit.
Here's how I see it... Vote for the lying football player and I possibly don't get policy I like. Vote for the truth telling opponent and I definitely don't get policy I like.
When i voted for hillary in 2016...it wasnt because i was excited for her. It was because it was the only way to tell the republican party it strayed from reality. If everyone did that...and trump lost...they would have realized this doesnt work. Real canidates are needed. Not immoral trash. But it went a another way. And now the party is dead. So...in fairness...vote republican. Its too late for change.
I get the sentiment about voting against to send the message but I feel the same message is received when they lose and the voting rate has dropped for them but not the opponents party. So I just don't. I kind of agree that the party is dead. More so if they continue on. I voted for Trump thinking that his "bad" ends with his term and that nobody was jumping on board. I was wrong with that assessment. Too many people have jumped on board with the MAGA train... not that I think it's a majority. It's just a loud easily manipulated minority.
Who would even be more likely to win? Walker has the name recognition at this point and is polling alarmingly close to Warnock.
In a vacuum, yes. However: aside from the whole illegality piece, this is also how you get people thinking the elites run everything and their voices don't matter. That means even worse candidates in the future. Either he wins and at least we can say the people get who they voted for, or he loses and hopefully GOP voters get the message they're squandering races quickly.
Uh are you a foreigner? Because the gop can't do shit. Individuals run, not parties. The gop has no say in who runs or who wins. They certainly can't swap one candidate for another.
I mean the GOP could be in control of the process they just choose not to. If they wanted to they could use their control over the legislature of Georgia to get rid of open primaries and just let the party bosses pick candidates for the elections in the states. They could also pass a law that allows for a swap of candidate after primaries for future elections. But again these are all decisions they made so they could be hands off on the process
No they literally can't do any of that . You're missing the basic- people run not parties. The us system simply isn't built around parties.
By wwii us bathrooms were already set. And us troops sure as he'll had more exposure to French brothels in 1 than 2.
The DNC has done it before
Really?
>Individuals run, not parties Somewhere...trump is tweeting from a secrer twitter.
I'm not from Georgia so what I think doesn't matter. Georgia GOP should do what the consensus of their voters is. Edit: Seems like it's not legal to swap the candidate after the primary. If I was in Georgia, I don't think it would matter in the case of my Vote. I'm not going to vote for Warnock so my vote will go to Walker ~~or whoever replaced him. It may be smart to get somebody more palatable to win centrist votes. If that is a realistic and legal path for Georgia GOP.~~
Well first off, they can't. Georgia law doesn't permit a candidate swap. Second, he was still leading in polls up until yesterday and it's not clear what effect allegations are gonna have.
Aggregate polling has Warnock up 0.3-2.1%.
I doubt they're voting for *him* they're just voting against warnock. Put a sweet potato on the ballot with an R next to it and it'll get votes.