Is Georgia on your mind?

[southernhybrid]

It's not just primaries in Georgia, when people don't show up. Too many people in Georgia don't bother to vote in the midterms. I've mentioned that problem before, so I'll leave it at that.

I understand that problem, but it is a separate one. Partisan primaries favoring the fringes in both parties is a separate problem, and the reason for MTG being elected. No matter the turnout in the general, no way would a D win in her R+28 district.

Plus, it's not just that MTG is a conservative. There are decent, reasonable conservatives who are willing to work toward compromise, and who aren't putting democracy in jeopardy. People like MTG are crazy QANON conspiracy theorists.

Right. That is why I am against the current partisan primary system. Better to have something like a jungle primary where all candidates appear on the same ballot and top x move on. California system has top two - regardless of party - going against each other in the general, but there are versions with top four advancing and the general being ranked choice between them.

I'm not sure how that would ever happen here, but I do like the fact that we have open primaries. I have asked for a Republican ballot at least once so I could vote against someone who I felt would be a horrible choice. Mr. Sohy asked for a Republican ballot in this year's primaries so he could vote against at least one unfit Republican. Both of us have always supported Democrats in the general elections.

I wish we had a system like the Aussies, where you get fined if you don't vote, assuming that's still the Australian system. Then again, if people would understand that their vote is the only small bit of power they have, maybe they would take it more seriously. I've never understood why so many Americans don't vote in most elections. I know a 53 year old woman who has never voted in her life. A neighbor helped her register in 2020, but at the last minute, she refused to vote. Why!

 

[Swammerdami]

OF COURSE there are many men, and many women, who will not vote for a woman. Just because many men are not sexist does not mean that all men are not sexist. The failure of progressives to understand simple trends like this is a reason to be very pessimistic about American politics.

That may be the case. However, I believe it is exaggerated for one, and also compensated for by those who would vote for a woman because she is a woman.

People who will not vote for a woman because she's a woman outnumber by at least 10-to-1 people who will not vote for a man because he's a man. This is certainly true in POTUS elections, less so in lesser elections.

A cretinous sociopath won the election of 2016 . . . because his opponent was a woman.

Wrong. He won for many reasons:
- the woman in question was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. She should not have been offered as heiress apparent. For one, the Hillary campaign largely ignored the mid-Western states that they mistakenly thought of as a nigh-impenetrable "firewall".

Many things EACH cost that very close election. Clinton would have won without Comey's late intervention, just for starters. Her campaign was certainly mismanaged. This was so obvious even to random outsiders like myself that one really has to wonder about Democrat competence.

But despite all the other reasons for her loss, Hillary would have won, all things the same, if she were male. The main charges that resonated with low-information voters were that she was "shrill", or "shrewish" or ... <pick a pejorative associated with females>.

- Trump had not yet shown how incompetent he was. He could not even delegate to a competent team.

His first term definitely demonstrated his incompetence. Yet he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016 and ALMOST won (losing only by a few thousand votes in key states) DESPITE the proof of his severe faults. (As I've said, he WOULD have won running against anyone other than Joe Biden.)

It's hard to comment intelligently on American elections without first acknowledging that Americans seem to be unusually stupid.

Elizabeth Warren is a fine woman, very popular, who should be a great candidate. Yet she doesn't get many votes. Guess why?

Are you sure she is "very popular" outside a rather narrow slice of the electorate? People don't like her, not even in her own state (where she finished 3rd). There are unlikable male politicians too.

She is very popular among her supporters and among intelligent progressives more generally. A chief reason for her low vote totals is, again, the stupidity of American voters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Red rubber stamp is it exactly. The dark money wants rubber stamps for the legislation written by ALEC, Heritage, Heartland,…. That is why they are putting in Boeberts, Greens, Walkers,…

That may be, but why are so many voters willing to vote for these totally unqualified, hateful people? I guess it's a cult...

I remember back in '08 when Palin was announced to become the VP candidate. And I was thinking, 'isn't she the Governor of Alaska who came out of no where?' That was the extent of what I knew... though that was likely 75% more than the average American. We had a worker who was going on about how great of a politician Sarah Palin was. In Ohio... someone was claiming how great this nobody was in Alaska. The media gives the nod, Trump gives the nod... and there is an instant following.

The hard part in all of this is separating the chaff. Usually in the Senate, it is much harder to get a radical or a buffoon into office. You can gerrymander a district, but not a state. Both Todd Akins and Judge Moore lost in reddish purple (at the time) to deep red states for Senate. Purdue lost in Georgia, reddish tint purple state. Palin lost in Alaska. Why can't these people make it, but a Walker can. That is the hard thing to parse. Walker seems particularly odd, because he is running against a Pastor, so the religion angle will be hard. Worst of all though, is Walker is almost stumping on a "I'm stupid, but vote for me I the red guy." type of ticket. He isn't running as much as an "outsider" but a "fucking moron".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The mental illness ain't the problem. It is his ability to make Trump look qualified for office that is. Walker played sports... and has tried to monetize that outside of the game. Lebron James is almost a billionaire and is the head of an incredible organization that included putting together a school for at risk and violent students, in an attempt to give them a shot at turning their early lives around (and James is still playing!). Herschel Walker played football decades ago. If anyone were to become a senator....

Neither would be in the least qualified to be a Senator. Lebron has said a number of idiotic things too over the years.

Lebron James is close to a billionaire these days and is big in Akron with helping with poverty, schooling, etc... He moved to LA for business reasons. The guy isn't a genius, but fuck, Walker and James have nothing in common, but being athletes.

But Walker has a fighting shot because Georgia is apparently out of their mind. I didn't think Walker had a prayer.

It's not so much that my state is out of its mind, but that Dems picked a candidate who is too left for the state and has his own problems.

A pastor is too far left? Is he even that partisan? He won in 2020.

After 2020, it seemed like Georgia felt that a candidate could be low enough. But they barely voted out Trump... and when I say they, it wasn't that many conservatives. So if those conservatives could vote for Trump still.. why the fuck not Walker.

2020 was a strange year. Pandemic was raging still, with no vaccines available yet. And it was a referendum on the Trump presidency.
Dems chose a poor candidate themselves. He was able to be elected in a weird year, and will likely be able to win because Rs nominated a bumbling idiot. But he really should be 10 or 15 points ahead, and had Dems nominated a better candidate in the Special, that candidate would be ahead by that much.

You are making declarative statements with no backing. The Dems won two seats in the Senate in Georgia including runoffs. Clearly the candidates weren't too liberal then.

Who cares he is a simpleton.

To be fair, his opponent is a Baptist preacher, i.e. not exactly a rocket surgeon himself.

Warnock can string together sentences. Walker appears completely incapable of communication. This isn't some sort of dig. Walker isn't on Fox or CBS or MNF, and we can tell why.

 

[Toni]

OF COURSE there are many men, and many women, who will not vote for a woman. Just because many men are not sexist does not mean that all men are not sexist. The failure of progressives to understand simple trends like this is a reason to be very pessimistic about American politics.

That may be the case. However, I believe it is exaggerated for one, and also compensated for by those who would vote for a woman because she is a woman.
What is definitely not the case is the simplistic notion that if one does not vote for a particular female candidate, one must have a problem with women qua women. No. All candidates, male and female alike, need to earn the votes of their constituents. They do not "deserve" a vote because they have the right genitalia, the right skin color or because "it's their turn".

I think that is the failure of fauxgressives. Playing the gender (and race) card as a default response.

For the record, I plan to vote for Stacey Abrams in November. But I do not think it is necessarily "sexism" if somebody decides differently. Even if they are black.

A cretinous sociopath won the election of 2016 . . . because his opponent was a woman.

Wrong. He won for many reasons:
- the woman in question was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. She should not have been offered as heiress apparent. For one, the Hillary campaign largely ignored the mid-Western states that they mistakenly thought of as a nigh-impenetrable "firewall".
- ed into hiTrump's economic populism in part resonated with the same "forgotten" people addressed by Bernie's campaign. The bad feelings between the Bernie and Hillary camp plays hands.
- The series of violent #BLM riots that started in 2014 continued through 2016 - for example Milwaukee in August and Charlotte in September. Note that Trump carried both Wisconsin and North Carolina. This was the first time Wisconsin turned red since 1984. Yes, even Dukakis managed to carry it. At the same time, Democratic campaigns embarrassed themselves with their ineffectual responses to #BLM disruption.

Btw, Hillary was right about "bringing them to heel".
- Trump had not yet shown how incompetent he was. He could not even delegate to a competent team.

Despite the gross stupidity and even treason on display during four years his base LOVED everything that he was doing, and he had the normal incumbent's advanatage. Yet he lost in 2020 . . . Why? He lost to a man, even an old easily parodied man.

For all his faults, Biden >> Hillary. He is a better politician, a better communicator. And he ran a better campaign.
But also, by 2020 we have all gotten to know Trump a lot better. And there was this little pandemic that year too.
To try to reduce the 2016 and 2020 outcomes to the genitalia of Trump's opponent is just silly.

I will admit that Trump's blatant sociopathy, or rather, the danger it posed, was not nearly so obvious prior to the election as it was once he took office, anyone with even casual observational skills was aware that he was a malignant sociopath who cared only about himself and his own ego long before he even considered running for POTUS.

Are you sure she is "very popular" outside a rather narrow slice of the electorate? People don't like her, not even in her own state (where she finished 3rd). There are unlikable male politicians too.
Warren has a schoolmarmy demeanor, and has scored some own goals (like the DNA test). Her scorched earth, personal destruction vendetta against Bloomberg left a very bad taste in my mouth during that debate. I think Bloomberg was the better of the two "old white guys" running in 2020 and I wonder if Biden made some sort of deal with Fauxcahontas.
Warren also had the misfortune of having a much more likeable Bernie in her lane in the primary. Had she decided to run in 2016 she could have had that lane to herself, but she decided not to challenge a fellow woman, so Bernie stepped up. And understandably ran again in 2020 when Warren decided to run.

You nicely illustrated the point of exactly why some voters preferred Bernie over Warren and yes, it definitely has to do with gender. No male candidate will ever be referred to as 'schoolmarmy' even when they are Bernie who is very school marmy with a loud voice and a lot of spittle but with a penis and testicles. Bernie stands before his audience and shouts at---no, DOWN at them, spittle flying and finger wagging. But Bernie got to be the beloved cranky old grandpa instead of the schoolmarmy old woman. Yes, gender did play a role just as race played a role in the Clinton/Obama mash up. One only needed to listen to/read supporters of each for detail and some casual sexism/casual racism became apparent among some, certainly not all, supporters of each.

The fact that Warren allowed herself to be drawn into a no-win argument with Trump over her family legend did point out her main weakness. Bernie would have just shouted and pointed his finger and the issue would have died. She took the issue too much to heart and felt it was necessary to address something that was beneath her. BTW, genetic data bases have insufficient NA DNA samples to make any of those services reliable for determining NA ancestry. Native Americans themselves do NOT use DNA to establish membership.

 

[ZiprHead]

A cretinous sociopath won the election of 2016 . . . because his opponent was a woman.

Wrong. He won for many reasons:
- the woman in question was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. She should not have been offered as heiress apparent. For one, the Hillary campaign largely ignored the mid-Western states that they mistakenly thought of as a nigh-impenetrable "firewall".

Many things EACH cost that very close election. Clinton would have won without Comey's late intervention, just for starters. Her campaign was certainly mismanaged. This was so obvious even to random outsiders like myself that one really has to wonder about Democrat competence.

I think this part needs to be addressed with what actually happened. Clinton's campaign was not only financing itself but the Democratic party as well. They were running low on funds. If you will remember the head of the party (Donna Brazile, iirc) was not happy with the situation because Clinton said if you want my campaign funds I get a say in how they are used. It was considered a minor scandal at the time.

Yes, it was a conscious decision to not campaign in what were considered safe states but that decision was made due to funding issues, not hubris and self-entitlement as Derec continually claims. Derec's misogyny leads him to wrong conclusions again.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OF COURSE there are many men, and many women, who will not vote for a woman. Just because many men are not sexist does not mean that all men are not sexist. The failure of progressives to understand simple trends like this is a reason to be very pessimistic about American politics.

That may be the case. However, I believe it is exaggerated for one, and also compensated for by those who would vote for a woman because she is a woman.
What is definitely not the case is the simplistic notion that if one does not vote for a particular female candidate, one must have a problem with women qua women. No. All candidates, male and female alike, need to earn the votes of their constituents. They do not "deserve" a vote because they have the right genitalia, the right skin color or because "it's their turn".

I think that is the failure of fauxgressives. Playing the gender (and race) card as a default response.

For the record, I plan to vote for Stacey Abrams in November. But I do not think it is necessarily "sexism" if somebody decides differently. Even if they are black.

A cretinous sociopath won the election of 2016 . . . because his opponent was a woman.

Wrong. He won for many reasons:
- the woman in question was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. She should not have been offered as heiress apparent. For one, the Hillary campaign largely ignored the mid-Western states that they mistakenly thought of as a nigh-impenetrable "firewall".
- ed into hiTrump's economic populism in part resonated with the same "forgotten" people addressed by Bernie's campaign. The bad feelings between the Bernie and Hillary camp plays hands.
- The series of violent #BLM riots that started in 2014 continued through 2016 - for example Milwaukee in August and Charlotte in September. Note that Trump carried both Wisconsin and North Carolina. This was the first time Wisconsin turned red since 1984. Yes, even Dukakis managed to carry it. At the same time, Democratic campaigns embarrassed themselves with their ineffectual responses to #BLM disruption.

Btw, Hillary was right about "bringing them to heel".
- Trump had not yet shown how incompetent he was. He could not even delegate to a competent team.

Despite the gross stupidity and even treason on display during four years his base LOVED everything that he was doing, and he had the normal incumbent's advanatage. Yet he lost in 2020 . . . Why? He lost to a man, even an old easily parodied man.

For all his faults, Biden >> Hillary. He is a better politician, a better communicator. And he ran a better campaign.
But also, by 2020 we have all gotten to know Trump a lot better. And there was this little pandemic that year too.
To try to reduce the 2016 and 2020 outcomes to the genitalia of Trump's opponent is just silly.

I will admit that Trump's blatant sociopathy, or rather, the danger it posed, was not nearly so obvious prior to the election as it was once he took office, anyone with even casual observational skills was aware that he was a malignant sociopath who cared only about himself and his own ego long before he even considered running for POTUS.

Are you sure she is "very popular" outside a rather narrow slice of the electorate? People don't like her, not even in her own state (where she finished 3rd). There are unlikable male politicians too.
Warren has a schoolmarmy demeanor, and has scored some own goals (like the DNA test). Her scorched earth, personal destruction vendetta against Bloomberg left a very bad taste in my mouth during that debate. I think Bloomberg was the better of the two "old white guys" running in 2020 and I wonder if Biden made some sort of deal with Fauxcahontas.
Warren also had the misfortune of having a much more likeable Bernie in her lane in the primary. Had she decided to run in 2016 she could have had that lane to herself, but she decided not to challenge a fellow woman, so Bernie stepped up. And understandably ran again in 2020 when Warren decided to run.

You nicely illustrated the point of exactly why some voters preferred Bernie over Warren and yes, it definitely has to do with gender. No male candidate will ever be referred to as 'schoolmarmy' even when they are Bernie who is very school marmy with a loud voice and a lot of spittle but with a penis and testicles. Bernie stands before his audience and shouts at---no, DOWN at them, spittle flying and finger wagging. But Bernie got to be the beloved cranky old grandpa instead of the schoolmarmy old woman. Yes, gender did play a role just as race played a role in the Clinton/Obama mash up. One only needed to listen to/read supporters of each for detail and some casual sexism/casual racism became apparent among some, certainly not all, supporters of each.

That is the funny deal with Bernie Sanders. He isn't an accomplished House Representative or Senator. By far. The amount he has accomplished in the time he has had in Government is shocking. He has decent ideas (and is more of a pathway to reaching some of those goals), which I think have tempered over the years, when the ideals of what socialism can accomplish verses what a mix of capitalism and socialism can accomplish became more apparent. But he can be rough while Warren is second guessed regardless however she reacts. She is too bossy, she is too reserved, she didn't defend herself enough, she was over-aggressive.

The shit Trump got away with at the debate verses Clinton? Had Clinton complained about the Trump campaign ads being unfair to her, she would have been inundated with criticism of "not being up to the task". Trump says it, and it was a non-issue. Had Clinton said what Biden had said, same issue with criticism for her demeanor.

The fact that Warren allowed herself to be drawn into a no-win argument with Trump over her family legend did point out her main weakness. Bernie would have just shouted and pointed his finger and the issue would have died. She took the issue too much to heart and felt it was necessary to address something that was beneath her. BTW, genetic data bases have insufficient NA DNA samples to make any of those services reliable for determining NA ancestry. Native Americans themselves do NOT use DNA to establish membership.

My problem with the Native American angle was that she used it for personal/professional gain, while never actually embracing the alleged heritage. That is repugnant behavior. It is like Trump going out there pretending he is wealthy.

 

[Toni]

OF COURSE there are many men, and many women, who will not vote for a woman. Just because many men are not sexist does not mean that all men are not sexist. The failure of progressives to understand simple trends like this is a reason to be very pessimistic about American politics.

That may be the case. However, I believe it is exaggerated for one, and also compensated for by those who would vote for a woman because she is a woman.
What is definitely not the case is the simplistic notion that if one does not vote for a particular female candidate, one must have a problem with women qua women. No. All candidates, male and female alike, need to earn the votes of their constituents. They do not "deserve" a vote because they have the right genitalia, the right skin color or because "it's their turn".

I think that is the failure of fauxgressives. Playing the gender (and race) card as a default response.

For the record, I plan to vote for Stacey Abrams in November. But I do not think it is necessarily "sexism" if somebody decides differently. Even if they are black.

A cretinous sociopath won the election of 2016 . . . because his opponent was a woman.

Wrong. He won for many reasons:
- the woman in question was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. She should not have been offered as heiress apparent. For one, the Hillary campaign largely ignored the mid-Western states that they mistakenly thought of as a nigh-impenetrable "firewall".
- ed into hiTrump's economic populism in part resonated with the same "forgotten" people addressed by Bernie's campaign. The bad feelings between the Bernie and Hillary camp plays hands.
- The series of violent #BLM riots that started in 2014 continued through 2016 - for example Milwaukee in August and Charlotte in September. Note that Trump carried both Wisconsin and North Carolina. This was the first time Wisconsin turned red since 1984. Yes, even Dukakis managed to carry it. At the same time, Democratic campaigns embarrassed themselves with their ineffectual responses to #BLM disruption.

Btw, Hillary was right about "bringing them to heel".
- Trump had not yet shown how incompetent he was. He could not even delegate to a competent team.

Despite the gross stupidity and even treason on display during four years his base LOVED everything that he was doing, and he had the normal incumbent's advanatage. Yet he lost in 2020 . . . Why? He lost to a man, even an old easily parodied man.

For all his faults, Biden >> Hillary. He is a better politician, a better communicator. And he ran a better campaign.
But also, by 2020 we have all gotten to know Trump a lot better. And there was this little pandemic that year too.
To try to reduce the 2016 and 2020 outcomes to the genitalia of Trump's opponent is just silly.

I will admit that Trump's blatant sociopathy, or rather, the danger it posed, was not nearly so obvious prior to the election as it was once he took office, anyone with even casual observational skills was aware that he was a malignant sociopath who cared only about himself and his own ego long before he even considered running for POTUS.

Are you sure she is "very popular" outside a rather narrow slice of the electorate? People don't like her, not even in her own state (where she finished 3rd). There are unlikable male politicians too.
Warren has a schoolmarmy demeanor, and has scored some own goals (like the DNA test). Her scorched earth, personal destruction vendetta against Bloomberg left a very bad taste in my mouth during that debate. I think Bloomberg was the better of the two "old white guys" running in 2020 and I wonder if Biden made some sort of deal with Fauxcahontas.
Warren also had the misfortune of having a much more likeable Bernie in her lane in the primary. Had she decided to run in 2016 she could have had that lane to herself, but she decided not to challenge a fellow woman, so Bernie stepped up. And understandably ran again in 2020 when Warren decided to run.

You nicely illustrated the point of exactly why some voters preferred Bernie over Warren and yes, it definitely has to do with gender. No male candidate will ever be referred to as 'schoolmarmy' even when they are Bernie who is very school marmy with a loud voice and a lot of spittle but with a penis and testicles. Bernie stands before his audience and shouts at---no, DOWN at them, spittle flying and finger wagging. But Bernie got to be the beloved cranky old grandpa instead of the schoolmarmy old woman. Yes, gender did play a role just as race played a role in the Clinton/Obama mash up. One only needed to listen to/read supporters of each for detail and some casual sexism/casual racism became apparent among some, certainly not all, supporters of each.

That is the funny deal with Bernie Sanders. He isn't an accomplished House Representative or Senator. By far. The amount he has accomplished in the time he has had in Government is shocking. He has decent ideas (and is more of a pathway to reaching some of those goals), which I think have tempered over the years, when the ideals of what socialism can accomplish verses what a mix of capitalism and socialism can accomplish became more apparent. But he can be rough while Warren is second guessed regardless however she reacts. She is too bossy, she is too reserved, she didn't defend herself enough, she was over-aggressive.

The shit Trump got away with at the debate verses Clinton? Had Clinton complained about the Trump campaign ads being unfair to her, she would have been inundated with criticism of "not being up to the task". Trump says it, and it was a non-issue. Had Clinton said what Biden had said, same issue with criticism for her demeanor.

The fact that Warren allowed herself to be drawn into a no-win argument with Trump over her family legend did point out her main weakness. Bernie would have just shouted and pointed his finger and the issue would have died. She took the issue too much to heart and felt it was necessary to address something that was beneath her. BTW, genetic data bases have insufficient NA DNA samples to make any of those services reliable for determining NA ancestry. Native Americans themselves do NOT use DNA to establish membership.

My problem with the Native American angle was that she used it for personal/professional gain, while never actually embracing the alleged heritage. That is repugnant behavior. It is like Trump going out there pretending he is wealthy.

Actually, she did NOT use the NA family legend for personal gain. It was simply a family legend that she shared as people are won’t to do with coworkers and at some point, her employer realized they needed to demonstrate more racial diversity and asked her about her NA ancestry at which point she shared the family legend. Good enough for their purposes. AFAIK, she never listed NA ancestry on any job application and never pretended to be anything but white.

Your assessment of Sanders’ accomplishments is pretty identical to my own.

 

[southernhybrid]

Red rubber stamp is it exactly. The dark money wants rubber stamps for the legislation written by ALEC, Heritage, Heartland,…. That is why they are putting in Boeberts, Greens, Walkers,…

That may be, but why are so many voters willing to vote for these totally unqualified, hateful people? I guess it's a cult...

I remember back in '08 when Palin was announced to become the VP candidate. And I was thinking, 'isn't she the Governor of Alaska who came out of no where?' That was the extent of what I knew... though that was likely 75% more than the average American. We had a worker who was going on about how great of a politician Sarah Palin was. In Ohio... someone was claiming how great this nobody was in Alaska. The media gives the nod, Trump gives the nod... and there is an instant following.

The hard part in all of this is separating the chaff. Usually in the Senate, it is much harder to get a radical or a buffoon into office. You can gerrymander a district, but not a state. Both Todd Akins and Judge Moore lost in reddish purple (at the time) to deep red states for Senate. Purdue lost in Georgia, reddish tint purple state. Palin lost in Alaska. Why can't these people make it, but a Walker can. That is the hard thing to parse. Walker seems particularly odd, because he is running against a Pastor, so the religion angle will be hard. Worst of all though, is Walker is almost stumping on a "I'm stupid, but vote for me I the red guy." type of ticket. He isn't running as much as an "outsider" but a "fucking moron".

Ok. Let's get back to Georgia. "Back to Georgia" Back to Georgia" Back where I come from......you know I gotta put in some words to songs in my posts, whenever possible....

Anyway. Walker is appealing to so many voters for two reasons. 1. For some strange reason that I will never understand, voting for celebrities is now a big thing. Lots of people in Georgia remember Walker when he played football here. They love him for that and because of this weird trend to vote for totally unqualified celebrities, they will support them Plus, when it comes to white people in Georgia, well over half usually vote for Republicans. I've always voted for Democrats and I've had to ask myself if a crazy, unqualified celebrity ran for office in Georgia, would I vote for him or her? Would I vote for the Republican alternative, or would I vote 3rd party and write in a name? It's hard to say. I guess it would depend on a lot of things, which brings up the second reason they will support Walker.

2. Republicans want to take back the Senate. They really don't care if they have to vote for a stupid, brain damaged man in order to accomplish that goal. Again, would those of us who always vote for Democrats, vote for an unqualified stupid one? We've had at least a couple of those in the House from Georgia. I'll let Derec mention one, if he wants. I'm thinking of the Congress woman from Dekalb.

As far as the pastor goes, white conservatives don't care about a Black liberal Christian pastor. Most of them are evangelicals or some other nutty sect of Christianity. Why would they support a Black pastor who has been tarred as an ultra liberal commie, when. he's more left of center, imo. Initially, I wasn't thrilled about voting for a pastor with no political experience, but he's doing alright and he's keeping his religion out of politics. He wasn't who I wanted to support in the primaries, but he had a lot of high profile endorsements so I knew he was the only one who had a chance of becoming our Senator.

Still, I never thought someone like Walker would be pushed to run by the Trumpers. Couldn't they at least have found someone with half a brain? I guess by running a Black celebrity, they could say, "Hey! We're not racist. We support Walker."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He played football in Georgia 40 years ago! I swear, college football is cult level status in the south.

It seems easy to forget, because I did, but Walker wasn't that great of a running back in the NFL. Leonard Russell (New England... back when they weren't remotely even as good as "awful") ran for more yards. He had a great year, then Minnesota traded their franchise's future for him and that was really that. He was a good running back, but wasn't an Emmitt Smith or Thurmon Thomas or Barry Sanders.

The GOP could have had someone... I don't know... mildly competent run in the primary and get the nomination. Then at least... fine. But jebus!

 

[Swammerdami]

A cretinous sociopath won the election of 2016 . . . because his opponent was a woman.

Wrong. He won for many reasons: ... For one, the Hillary campaign largely ignored the mid-Western states that they mistakenly thought of as a nigh-impenetrable "firewall"

Many things EACH cost that very close election. ... Her campaign was certainly mismanaged. This was so obvious even to random outsiders like myself that one really has to wonder about Democrat competence.

I think this part needs to be addressed with what actually happened. Clinton's campaign was not only financing itself but the Democratic party as well. They were running low on funds. If you will remember the head of the party (Donna Brazile, iirc) was not happy with the situation because Clinton said if you want my campaign funds I get a say in how they are used. It was considered a minor scandal at the time.

Yes, it was a conscious decision to not campaign in what were considered safe states but that decision was made due to funding issues, not hubris and self-entitlement as Derec continually claims. Derec's misogyny leads him to wrong conclusions again.

It was treating Pennsylvania as safe that was especially stupid. Nate Silver (already idolized for his predictive analyses in 2016) has a concept called "Tipping State." And the Tipping State was ... Pennsylvania! Other Rust Belt states were nearby on the Tipping Axis.

Because information now travels faster than horses, a large component of voter sentiment moves in unison across the fifty states. When Nate Silver's numbers showed Pennsylvania to be the tipping state, he meant that If the election were close, PA would be the Key state. Stated differently, IF PA voted Clinton, she'd win the necessary 270+ EVs; otherwise she wouldn't.

In the olden days, one would have needed a high school education to grasp that Pennsylvania was the most important place to direct campaigning. But in 2016, even a high school education was unnecessary: One only needed the literacy skills to skim Nate Silver's website.

Yet, Clinton hardly bothered to campaign in the Rust Belt. Explanation: Her goal was NOT to get 51% of the electoral votes, but to get 80%. In her delusion she thought she'd win a landslide and wanted the landslide as big as possible.

The delusion infected many Democrats. Whenever I pointed out, in 2016, that the Keystone State was the Key, all I got were whines that Clinton was going to win PA anyway.

Speaking of Donna Brazile, there's another topic on which the morons running the D Party should have listened to me (and Ms. Brazile). It was obvious to all that Biden would have been the stronger candidate. (He bowed out early because of a family death, but could have re-entered during or even after the Convention.) I pointed out that replacing candidates was appropriate even at that late stage given Clinton's very dismal performance. The nitwits at The Other Message Board — who pride themselves on "Fighting Ignorance" but can't hold a candle to IIDB! — whined and whinged that I didn't understand how primaries worked.

And yet:

In her new book, the former DNC chief details dysfunction in the Democratic Party and reveals secret deliberations to replace Clinton-Kaine with Biden-Booker ...

 

[Swammerdami]

It's hard to comment intelligently on American elections without first acknowledging that Americans seem to be unusually stupid.

It's especially American politicians who have become increasingly stupid. I am certainly not the only one concerned about this. Andy Borowitz talks about his new book Profiles in Ignorance: How America’s Politicians Got Dumber and Dumber.

While it's clear that America has certainly gotten stupider in recent decades, is this a world-wide phenomenon? I don't think it's limited to a few Anglophone countries: Right-wing populists have been elected in recent European elections.

One country where I have some first-hand knowledge is the Kingdom of Thailand. Citizens here have become increasingly interested in actual issues, rather then who they'd like to have a beer with.

 

[Swammerdami]

My problem with the Native American angle was that she used it for personal/professional gain, while never actually embracing the alleged heritage. That is repugnant behavior. It is like Trump going out there pretending he is wealthy.

Oh, please. Not this again. Shame on you.

Her family legend pointed to a SPECIFIC ancestor alleged to be half Amerind. The DNA test more or less confirmed this, although Amerind testing is error-prone. That ancestor was likely quarter Amerind instead of half: So what?

There was nothing venal about Warren's embracing her family legend, but the QOP seizes on every half-truth or piece of gibberish they can find to make Ds look as bad as Rs.

It is a real shame that otherwise intelligent good-spirited Americans pick up on such QOP lies and gibberish and propagate it.

 

[Derec]

I've never understood why so many Americans don't vote in most elections. I know a 53 year old woman who has never voted in her life. A neighbor helped her register in 2020, but at the last minute, she refused to vote. Why!

Combination of laziness and apathy. Apathy because the choices we have are so often poor (recall South Park's "turd sandwich vs. a giant douche")

 

[Derec]

People who will not vote for a woman because she's a woman outnumber by at least 10-to-1 people who will not vote for a man because he's a man. This is certainly true in POTUS elections, less so in lesser elections.

[citation needed]

Many things EACH cost that very close election. Clinton would have won without Comey's late intervention, just for starters. Her campaign was certainly mismanaged. This was so obvious even to random outsiders like myself that one really has to wonder about Democrat competence.

"I am not part of an organized political party - I am a Democrat" - Will Rogers

But despite all the other reasons for her loss, Hillary would have won, all things the same, if she were male.

I disagree. All things being the same, he would not even be nominated. Hell, he would not have been the Senator from NY most likely, since he would not have been married to Bill.
A Hildebrand Rodham would be a successful corporate lawyer, but I do not think he would have been a successful politician. Bill always had the political skills and talent between the two.

The main charges that resonated with low-information voters were that she was "shrill", or "shrewish" or ... <pick a pejorative associated with females>.

Some adjectives are gender specific. A shrew is a female stock character (also a small mammal). That does not mean that similar qualities would be liked if Hillary was Hildebrand.

His first term definitely demonstrated his incompetence. Yet he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016 and ALMOST won (losing only by a few thousand votes in key states) DESPITE the proof of his severe faults.

The turnout was much higher in 2020 than in 2016 (61.3% vs. 55.7%).
And Trump being competitive in many key states is also a testament to the flaws of Biden. He was less flawed than Hillary, but still very flawed.

(As I've said, he WOULD have won running against anyone other than Joe Biden.)

Against Bernie or Liz, most surely. But against anyone? Very unlikely. I think Bloomberg would have won in the general by a greater margin and he would be a much better president than Uncle Joe. And I also think Biden and Liz had a deal for her to attack Bloomberg with that personal attack during a debate.

It's hard to comment intelligently on American elections without first acknowledging that Americans seem to be unusually stupid.

Unusually stupid? No. There are stupid people everywhere.
But I do think US system is far more centered on personalities than others in the developed world, and that lets stupidity shine through.
For example, most other countries do not have primary election. The candidates are put up by parties.

She is very popular among her supporters

That's almost a tautology. The thing is, she did not have enough supporters to finish higher than third in her own state.

and among intelligent progressives more generally.

[Citation needed] yet again.

A chief reason for her low vote totals is, again, the stupidity of American voters.

Just because you like Warren does not mean those of us who don't are "stupid" for not seeing how great she is.

 

[Derec]

I remember back in '08 when Palin was announced to become the VP candidate. And I was thinking, 'isn't she the Governor of Alaska who came out of no where?' That was the extent of what I knew... though that was likely 75% more than the average American.

I never thought the "governor of Alaska" was a fair quip, or an effective one. Alaska may not have a lot of people, but it does have a huge area that needs to be managed - wildlife, energy (lots of oil!) etc. And a governor is an executive position, unlike Senator. Besides, Vermont is smaller by population, and Delaware not that much bigger, and both those fellows were not ridiculed for how small the states they represented were.

Sarah Palin looked good on paper. But once she opened her mouth ...

We had a worker who was going on about how great of a politician Sarah Palin was. In Ohio... someone was claiming how great this nobody was in Alaska. The media gives the nod, Trump gives the nod... and there is an instant following.

How did we jump to Trump now?

The hard part in all of this is separating the chaff. Usually in the Senate, it is much harder to get a radical or a buffoon into office. You can gerrymander a district, but not a state.

True. Lots of buffoons and radicals (sometimes one and the same) in the House, on both sides. It's harder for them to be elected statewide, but not impossible.

Palin lost in Alaska. Why can't these people make it, but a Walker can.

Walker still hasn't shown he can.
Palin's was a special House election (at large district, so statewide) off term, so turnout is different. Also, Alaska has ranked choice voting and two viable Republicans were running, without many of their voters selecting each other as their second choice.

Walker seems particularly odd, because he is running against a Pastor, so the religion angle will be hard.

One of the reasons I can't stand Warnock.

Worst of all though, is Walker is almost stumping on a "I'm stupid, but vote for me I the red guy." type of ticket. He isn't running as much as an "outsider" but a "fucking moron".

Question: if Dems nominated a moron for Senate in your state, would you still for that person?

 

[Swammerdami]

People who will not vote for a woman because she's a woman outnumber by at least 10-to-1 people who will not vote for a man because he's a man. This is certainly true in POTUS elections, less so in lesser elections.

[citation needed]

Watch some Jordan Klepper videos and get back to us. Start with the QOPster who is proud that QOP has "great respect for women" but wears a T-shirt saying "Hilary sucks ... but not like Monica!" Continue to the interviews of FEMALE QOPsters who think hormones disqualify women from the Presidency.

His first term definitely demonstrated his incompetence. Yet he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016 and ALMOST won (losing only by a few thousand votes in key states) DESPITE the proof of his severe faults.

The turnout was much higher in 2020 than in 2016 (61.3% vs. 55.7%).
And Trump being competitive in many key states is also a testament to the flaws of Biden. He was less flawed than Hillary, but still very flawed.

In 2016 many literate Americans knew of Trump only as a loud-mouth reality TV star. By 2020 it should have been obvious to any sentient being that he was grossly incompetent and criminal. He shouldn't have gotten any votes at all, yet came within a razor-thin whisker of victory. And you want to parse decimal points on the 74 Million votes he got? Think about Donald Trump. Stare at the M in "74 Million." Get back to us when you have a clue.

 

[Derec]

Lebron James is close to a billionaire these days

So? He got there by throwing a big ball through a slightly larger hoop. Big whoop!
It's not like he created an electric car and rocket business.

and is big in Akron with helping with poverty, schooling, etc...

He is also a racist, who said that he "wants nothing to do with white people".
And his statements about policing have been totally idiotic.
Example: LeBron James Deletes Tweet Saying ‘You’re Next’ to Officer Who Shot Ma’Khia Bryant
Just to refresh everybody's memory: Ma'Khia Bryant was about to stab another teenage girl when she was justifiably shot. But Lebron only sees race and makes his judgement based on that alone.

He moved to LA for business reasons. The guy isn't a genius, but fuck, Walker and James have nothing in common, but being athletes.

They also have in common that neither should be a US senator.

A pastor is too far left? Is he even that partisan?

There is such a thing as Christian Left.

He won in 2020.

In a very unusual year. And this year his opponent is a bumbling idiot. Otherwise he'd lose for sure.
He is significantly more left than his state.
This site ranks him second on "progressive score" vs. "state tilt". Jon Ossoff is third. So he will be in some trouble too in four years.

You are making declarative statements with no backing. The Dems won two seats in the Senate in Georgia including runoffs. Clearly the candidates weren't too liberal then.

You disbelieve that 2020 was a highly unusual year because of Trump and COVID? What "backing" do you want on that? Yes, both of them won in 2020. That was a major coup for the Democrats. But it was also a fluke.

Warnock can string together sentences. Walker appears completely incapable of communication. This isn't some sort of dig. Walker isn't on Fox or CBS or MNF, and we can tell why.

Yes, Walker is a moron, and has diagnosed mental health issues.
And he is the only reason Warnock is leading right now.

 

[Swammerdami]

I remember back in '08 when Palin was announced to become the VP candidate. And I was thinking, 'isn't she the Governor of Alaska who came out of no where?' That was the extent of what I knew... though that was likely 75% more than the average American.

And that was all John McCain knew about her. Whether out of desperation or stupidity, he picked her thoughtlessly without any vetting. I liked John McCain but intelligence was not one of his strengths.

I never thought the "governor of Alaska" was a fair quip, or an effective one. Alaska may not have a lot of people, but it does have a huge area that needs to be managed - wildlife, energy (lots of oil!) etc. And a governor is an executive position, unlike Senator. Besides, Vermont is smaller by population, and Delaware not that much bigger, and both those fellows were not ridiculed for how small the states they represented were.

Sarah Palin looked good on paper. But once she opened her mouth ...

Hunh? What "paper"? Her resume, persona, etc. were not secrets.

 

[Derec]

I will admit that Trump's blatant sociopathy, or rather, the danger it posed, was not nearly so obvious prior to the election as it was once he took office, anyone with even casual observational skills was aware that he was a malignant sociopath who cared only about himself and his own ego long before he even considered running for POTUS.

Perhaps. I would argue that some level of sociopathy is present in most politicians.

You nicely illustrated the point of exactly why some voters preferred Bernie over Warren and yes, it definitely has to do with gender.

Bullshit. You want to make everything about gender when Bernie and Warren have very different personalities, and Bernie's is just far more appealing.

No male candidate will ever be referred to as 'schoolmarmy'

No, of course not. A schoolmarm is a woman, so that particular word would be applied to women. Duh.
A man exhibiting similar traits would be compared maybe to a strict headmaster character.

even when they are Bernie who is very school marmy with a loud voice and a lot of spittle but with a penis and testicles.

How is Bernie schoolmarmy? He comes across as passionate, not schoolmarmy or headmasterly at all.
Again, Bernie and Warren have very different personalities.

Bernie stands before his audience and shouts at---no, DOWN at them, spittle flying and finger wagging.

In my opinion Liz is lecturing DOWN on people.

But Bernie got to be the beloved cranky old grandpa instead of the schoolmarmy old woman. Yes, gender did play a role just as race played a role in the Clinton/Obama mash up. One only needed to listen to/read supporters of each for detail and some casual sexism/casual racism became apparent among some, certainly not all, supporters of each.

Given that these people have supporters in the millions, of course some of them are bound to be sexist or racist.
You, however, are trying to reduce difference in popularity between Bernie and Liz to their gender, and that won't work.
The difference is due to their personalities, not gender.

The fact that Warren allowed herself to be drawn into a no-win argument with Trump over her family legend did point out her main weakness. Bernie would have just shouted and pointed his finger and the issue would have died.

Another example is when she claimed that Bernie said that a woman could not win and the whole conflict between them over it.

She did not come off very good there either.

BTW, genetic data bases have insufficient NA DNA samples to make any of those services reliable for determining NA ancestry.

Not to mention that Amerinds are from Siberia, which means that people indigenous to eastern Eurasia would share a lot of haplogroups with Amerinds.

Native Americans themselves do NOT use DNA to establish membership.

Many probably do not even believe in DNA.