Regarding Tim's piece today on "humoring him" aka Trump. Isn't the bigger problem "humoring THEM" i.e. once Trump is gone, the voters are still there and aren't they the ones actually needing to "be humored"? If the Republicans think Trump's disappearance will provide for the return of the traditional Conservative party, isn't that naive? As equally naive as waiting out Trump, i.e. humoring him?
Again, the perfect is the enemy of the good. We want exactly what we want and we want it now. I too am unhappy with Elias. I listen to Akhil Reed Amar! He and his brother are the experts here I think.
Charlie, the Republicans will not pursue the ECA again, you should know being a former slimey R-member. They will instead rely on state legislatures to BOTH suppress certain voters ad then to jigger election results to their pleasure. Who cares about the ECA! Where have you been the last 12 months?
So, the D's are spending hundreds of thousands of $$ trying to help some of the R Crazies win their primaries on the premise they'll be easier to beat come November compared to a more or less regular (read sane) R, an endeavor pretty much akin to cleaning your flamethrower while it's still loaded. You might get away with it, but then again if you don't...
I'm sure they're depending on many great polls and statistics in making this calculus. Now, polls and statistics can be useful things. But here's the thing...polls and statistics don't vote. People do. Just as they did in 2016 when all those numbers had pretty much anointed Hil...oh, never mind. Nothing to be learned from the past in this case.
And we're depending on the D's in Congress to have the great good sense to sign onto and pass this ECA legislation? Sorry, Charlie, FFS doesn't quite cover it. What really does probably isn't printable in this space.
The Dems are not helping R crazies. They are putting out attack ads on the R crazies and since everyone knows the R base loves their crazy it is being interpreted as a boost or a help to that candidate.
This is a R voter problem and not a D stategery problem.
OK, so since I'm not a 'political strategist' by any stretch of the imagination (I'm neither cunning nor devious enough), maybe you can explain why one would "attack" a primary candidate whom you're not assured of facing in the general election, and spend significant money doing it for a reason other than the one that seems to be a popular take with many pundits? I'm asking seriously, not to gainsay your position, but to try to make sense of this. It doesn't make much sense to me, either way, considering the risk involved.
You are right about R voters being a problem. By my lights they are the *biggest* problem.
I think the bigger gamble is expecting Collins and Manchin to stick to their agreement if it does get general support. After all, Manchin dropped all interest in *HIS* own alternative to HR1 the very second Stacey Abrams and other "leftists" said "Sure, sounds great!" and got on board with it
You may well be right. Too much posturing and not enough, if any, backbone a common malady these days. Manchin is what he is, and the same with Collins. And neither have shown themselves to be exactly "dependable" in more ways than one.
I'm really sick of this particular hobby horse. JVL has this right. This isn't Democrats misrepresenting who these people are. It's providing the civic service of making more people aware of exactly what they stand for.
If you view that as some kind of nefarious trick, you're example #1,256,309 of removing agency from Republican voters.
I wonder if there is an added effect to pointing out that Trumpy Candidate X is too conservative for State Y.
If that candidate wins, think of the mindset of the republicans who agree with such an ad. They might just be more likely to sit out the general if they agree with the ad and see that they are out of step with the current republican party.
There seems never to have been any entreaty aimed at Pence that Short didn't see before or at the same time as Pence. including the Jenna Ellis memo and a meeting with Trump and Eastman in the Oval. And he was indignant from the start--should be a terrific witness.
It seems to me that the Democrats aren't so much promoting the Trump backed candidates as much as painting ALL Republicans with the same brush. In effect they ay are saying, "look at this Republican running for election. He supports Trump, therefore, all Republicans REALLY support Trump even if they say they don't." So it's not so much they want the Trump supported candidate to win, it's more that all Republicans are loyal to Trump first. You have to admit it would be hard to find a traditional Republican in office who did not vote against impeachment. Most Republicams in office have put Trump before country, and they will again. They have no spine.
Re: Elias' weird fixation on Kinzinger -- According to Jung, the Shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to psychological projection, in which a perceived personal inferiority is recognized as a perceived moral deficiency in someone else.
Marc Elias really kinda epitomizes the tendency for Progressives to create circular firing squads. They could avoid that by, you know, just taking a breath and looking honestly at what can be done. But no, no, instead they're going to refuse to repair and reinforce the defenses now because of course there is going to be another attack so why should we fix them? God, our empire for some competence in execution...
Marc Elias is not a pundit. He’s the Dem equivalent of Ben Ginsberg with respect to election law. It is he who fought Trump’s election BS in the courts across the country in 2020. There are many detailed comments above that outline Elias’s objections to the proposed legislation and they are not punditry but are based on his expertise in the law.
Elias is quickly relegating himself to "more trouble than he's worth" status. It's not like he's the only lawyer capable of taking batting practice against the litany of risible election lawsuits that Giuliani and his Keystone Cops brought forward after Trump's defeat.
It may be stupid and cynical of Democrats to run, what are for all intents and purposes, negative ads in Republican primaries. However, this is really on Republican primary voters and party operatives not Democrats or their voters in the end. Only in an upside down world like ours are negative ads seen as “boosting”. This strategy only works if their are insane voters.
Let’s call it what it is: republicans for the most part struggle to say how bad their voters have become. Much easier to blame democrats than accept responsibility for their voters.
Regarding Tim's piece today on "humoring him" aka Trump. Isn't the bigger problem "humoring THEM" i.e. once Trump is gone, the voters are still there and aren't they the ones actually needing to "be humored"? If the Republicans think Trump's disappearance will provide for the return of the traditional Conservative party, isn't that naive? As equally naive as waiting out Trump, i.e. humoring him?
Loved “Saying Goobye to My Father…” It was well worth taking the time to read the entire piece. Thank you so much for including it.
Again, the perfect is the enemy of the good. We want exactly what we want and we want it now. I too am unhappy with Elias. I listen to Akhil Reed Amar! He and his brother are the experts here I think.
Where are all the stories about Republican primaries where both candidates are contesting the results and crying the election was stolen from them?
I am done here.
Charlie, the Republicans will not pursue the ECA again, you should know being a former slimey R-member. They will instead rely on state legislatures to BOTH suppress certain voters ad then to jigger election results to their pleasure. Who cares about the ECA! Where have you been the last 12 months?
So, the D's are spending hundreds of thousands of $$ trying to help some of the R Crazies win their primaries on the premise they'll be easier to beat come November compared to a more or less regular (read sane) R, an endeavor pretty much akin to cleaning your flamethrower while it's still loaded. You might get away with it, but then again if you don't...
I'm sure they're depending on many great polls and statistics in making this calculus. Now, polls and statistics can be useful things. But here's the thing...polls and statistics don't vote. People do. Just as they did in 2016 when all those numbers had pretty much anointed Hil...oh, never mind. Nothing to be learned from the past in this case.
And we're depending on the D's in Congress to have the great good sense to sign onto and pass this ECA legislation? Sorry, Charlie, FFS doesn't quite cover it. What really does probably isn't printable in this space.
The Dems are not helping R crazies. They are putting out attack ads on the R crazies and since everyone knows the R base loves their crazy it is being interpreted as a boost or a help to that candidate.
This is a R voter problem and not a D stategery problem.
OK, so since I'm not a 'political strategist' by any stretch of the imagination (I'm neither cunning nor devious enough), maybe you can explain why one would "attack" a primary candidate whom you're not assured of facing in the general election, and spend significant money doing it for a reason other than the one that seems to be a popular take with many pundits? I'm asking seriously, not to gainsay your position, but to try to make sense of this. It doesn't make much sense to me, either way, considering the risk involved.
You are right about R voters being a problem. By my lights they are the *biggest* problem.
I think the bigger gamble is expecting Collins and Manchin to stick to their agreement if it does get general support. After all, Manchin dropped all interest in *HIS* own alternative to HR1 the very second Stacey Abrams and other "leftists" said "Sure, sounds great!" and got on board with it
You may well be right. Too much posturing and not enough, if any, backbone a common malady these days. Manchin is what he is, and the same with Collins. And neither have shown themselves to be exactly "dependable" in more ways than one.
I keep expecting Manchin to turn R right after the election.
I'm really sick of this particular hobby horse. JVL has this right. This isn't Democrats misrepresenting who these people are. It's providing the civic service of making more people aware of exactly what they stand for.
If you view that as some kind of nefarious trick, you're example #1,256,309 of removing agency from Republican voters.
I wonder if there is an added effect to pointing out that Trumpy Candidate X is too conservative for State Y.
If that candidate wins, think of the mindset of the republicans who agree with such an ad. They might just be more likely to sit out the general if they agree with the ad and see that they are out of step with the current republican party.
Marc Short has eloquently and appropriately tarred-and-feathered a national menace. Marc Short is the hot takes hero of the day.
There seems never to have been any entreaty aimed at Pence that Short didn't see before or at the same time as Pence. including the Jenna Ellis memo and a meeting with Trump and Eastman in the Oval. And he was indignant from the start--should be a terrific witness.
It seems to me that the Democrats aren't so much promoting the Trump backed candidates as much as painting ALL Republicans with the same brush. In effect they ay are saying, "look at this Republican running for election. He supports Trump, therefore, all Republicans REALLY support Trump even if they say they don't." So it's not so much they want the Trump supported candidate to win, it's more that all Republicans are loyal to Trump first. You have to admit it would be hard to find a traditional Republican in office who did not vote against impeachment. Most Republicams in office have put Trump before country, and they will again. They have no spine.
Re: Elias' weird fixation on Kinzinger -- According to Jung, the Shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to psychological projection, in which a perceived personal inferiority is recognized as a perceived moral deficiency in someone else.
Marc Elias really kinda epitomizes the tendency for Progressives to create circular firing squads. They could avoid that by, you know, just taking a breath and looking honestly at what can be done. But no, no, instead they're going to refuse to repair and reinforce the defenses now because of course there is going to be another attack so why should we fix them? God, our empire for some competence in execution...
No one is forcing anyone to heed Marc Elias' advice, are they?
Mr. Elias is a pundit.
He sells a product, the product being his opinion.
No one is obligated to buy what he sells.
Marc Elias is not a pundit. He’s the Dem equivalent of Ben Ginsberg with respect to election law. It is he who fought Trump’s election BS in the courts across the country in 2020. There are many detailed comments above that outline Elias’s objections to the proposed legislation and they are not punditry but are based on his expertise in the law.
Elias is quickly relegating himself to "more trouble than he's worth" status. It's not like he's the only lawyer capable of taking batting practice against the litany of risible election lawsuits that Giuliani and his Keystone Cops brought forward after Trump's defeat.
It may be stupid and cynical of Democrats to run, what are for all intents and purposes, negative ads in Republican primaries. However, this is really on Republican primary voters and party operatives not Democrats or their voters in the end. Only in an upside down world like ours are negative ads seen as “boosting”. This strategy only works if their are insane voters.
Let’s call it what it is: republicans for the most part struggle to say how bad their voters have become. Much easier to blame democrats than accept responsibility for their voters.