So, as an Ohioan, as it seems as though the analysts have all called Ohio for the Republicans for this seat, should it make sense for me to cross the aisle and vote in the Republican primary to try to get a less crazy person nominated?
Assuming that there are any, that is. Looking down the list of prospective candidates, the only one that doesn’t make me gag immediately is Vance, but I’m not sure that I won’t change that reaction if I were to get to know him better.
I’d say that Tim Ryan is the most likely Democratic candidate, but I think I’d rather see John Cranley, but he’s set on the Gubernatorial race.
I see that Jerry Springer is thinking of running on the Democratic side. Maybe him as a nominee will even out the crazy.
Or you might decide to tactically vote in the GOP primary to get the more crazy person nominated, to help the Democratic nominee that fall. But then, of course, I suppose you run the risk that the crazier Republican actually wins in the fall, too, and kick yourself because you helped him (or her) get that far.
I don’t really have an opinion regarding what primary one “should” vote in. I tend to vote in the race where my vote will have the most impact. So if one primary is uncontested I would vote in the other primary (typically - it’s normally not that simple since there are multiple races on the ballot).
I would think that for an open seat both parties will have a contested primary. But you could always look at polling and see if one is tighter than the other. I would agree that helping avoid an extremist GOP nominee would be a worthwhile use of your primary vote, particularly if Tim Ryan has the Democratic nomination locked up.
2016 firmly soured me on the notion of crossing over to sabotage the other party by voting for the more extreme candidate.
Strangely, the matchups put the crazier ones at an advantage to the less crazy.
In any case, I don’t really believe in crossing the line to try to sabotage the other party. I do believe in crossing the line to moderate the other party.
If nothing else, as you said, that crazier guy may end up getting into office. 2016’s a mess, but a non-negligible number of primary voters for Trump were Democrats trying to sabotage the Republican primary. Whether that’s what made the difference, I dunno, but I certainly wouldn’t want to have any part in that.
Fair. My voting has always been prioritized towards local politics and issues. Most of the time, that actually involves crossing the aisle, as it’s pretty rare for a Democrat to get elected around here to a local office.
The last couple of cycles I’ve voted in the Democratic primary as I had personal acquaintances running, and wanted to show them support.
But for this race, even though my vote counts for less than it does for municipal or county issues, it may still be more important anyway.
My thoughts as well. Your conclusion is even more apt nowadays, as it appears there is nothing Republican candidates can say or do (except for repudiating Trump, perhaps), no depths they can sink to, that will make them unelectable by their hyper-polarized base.
I’m a little surprised that the markets are that down on NC and that high on PA, but it’s super early yet. It’ll be interesting to see when Ron Johnson makes up his mind whether that pushes the percentage for WI up or down.
As I’ve said before, for Trump to improve both his winning percentage and his actual vote tally here from 2016 to 2020 - despite repeated lies, the economic slump, needless COVID deaths, a mass shooting in Dayton, etc. - leaves me very disappointed in my fellow Ohioans.
Disappointing as Ohio is, it’s even more concerning because Ohio shares so many demographic characteristics with PA/MI/WI. Until (if) Texas turns blue, those trends are dangerous to Dem presidential hopes. Plus those blue Senate seats.
I’m confident Raphael Warnock will win his election for a full term in the Senate representing Georgia.
I really like the guy. If the Democratic Party can find more candidates like him then the party will sweep the country in my opinion. Maybe because he was a preacher and used to to delivering thoughtful messages that he has a natural gift and advantage that the party as a whole needs to work on.
He has what Obama had, prime Bill Clinton had, but not many other Democrats have. And that particular attribute is the ability to speak quite profoundly about difficult subjects in a way that might require cold hard and uncomfortable truths about American history and psyche, but develop it to form a broader message of aspiration to appeal to people’s better instincts. I think he can run for president one day and connect in areas that aren’t very liberal but will hear him out because of that ability to preach but without coming across scolding or out of touch or holier than thou.
I wonder how much money Lara Trump - and PAC’s and other fundraisers using her name - raked in by pretending she might run for Senate?
That’s why I’m not taking a lot of these potential candidacies seriously yet, especially runs by celebrities, pundits, Trumps and other non-politicians. Promoting fake candidacies and campaigns to “recruit” celebrity candidates are time-honored tactics (actually a tactic perfected by Republicans during the past 15 years) for grifting the gullible.
That’s a good article. Thanks for sharing. I am optimistic for 2022 as it stands because the administration is off to a good start and I feel the more good things Biden delivers coupled with a Republican Party still in a state of Trumpism that the complacency that usually affects the party in power in midterms won’t happen. There was a poll recently that said the majority of Americans still view Biden as ‘moderate’ despite the Fox/Right Wing efforts to make it out that communists are running the show. Even though he is not on the ballot in 2022 his stewardship as a unifier should also help down ballot Democrats when they run on an 18 month record next November.
It’s just messaging that can hurt Democrats. There is no policy in the Republican Party. Democrats won back the House in 2018 with the core message being protecting Obamacare. What are the Republicans offering? They’re busy talking about nonsensical matters trending on social media but are of no real world consequence.
No doubt he’s a good politician, having slightly outperformed his fellow senator Jon Ossoff. He would have probably done better than Mark Kelly had he been running in Arizona (assuming he had been a lifelong Arizonan rather than Georgian). But I doubt he would have won in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Texas. Good candidates matter in a close race, but they aren’t going to swing a solid red or solid blue district or state*. That’s why the Republicans are getting away with running terrible candidates and still winning.
The only exceptions are what I call legacy candidates, like Joe Manchin in WV and Tester in Montana, but they’re the last of them as far as I can tell.
Messaging, yes, but the key is to maintain enthusiasm. The 1994 and 2010 defeats were in large part due to liberals being disappointed in Hillarycare (since it failed) and Obamacare (because it wasn’t liberal enough) and staying home. Liberals need to realize that in the current climate, they aren’t going to get their wishlist no matter what happens. They have a choice between possibly getting their wishlist in the medium term, likely after the 2028 election should 2022, 2024, 2026, and 2028 go blue vs. the permanent failure of their wishlist should the Republicans win any of those races. Short term success isn’t in the cards, but that doesn’t mean they should give up.
