It’s has as much effect that one person has on any other election. I had two candidates to choose from, i chose the more-moderate incumbent, he lost. There will be no general election because there’s no Democrat running.
Maybe I misunderstood. Were the two candidates on the same primary ballot?
These people probably voted the way their preachers told them to, which can get their church’s tax-exempt status revoked.
How often does that happen for that reason?
Maybe I misunderstood, but it has seemed obvious to me since reading the OP that the OP is talking about a Republican primary in which a group of Trump ideological extremists called “Ottawa Impact” primaried the old-school conservative Republican incumbents.
So yeah, the extremist and the incumbent were on the same primary ballot.
But the Democrat and Republican primaries are on separate ballots, and you can only vote on one of them, correct?
In my state, if I chose to take a Democrat ballot to do some cross-over voting in the primary, I’d forgo the chance to vote for my preferred candidates in the that particular Republican primary for all of the other offices–including Governor, Congress, state legislators, and other state and county officials.
Yeah, i voted the republican ballot because there were no worthwhile races involving democrats. No Senate race in Michigan, Gov. Whitmer isn’t being challenged by another Democrat, our House candidate fucked up his petition signatures so he was running a write-in campaign to get on the November ballot (which he’ll end up losing to the incumbent anyway), and no local Democrats running for anything.
So i could’ve voted the Democratic side only to write in a Democratic House candidate who has no chance of winning in the general, or i could’ve voted the Republican side in an attempt to keep a radical nutjob from winning a seat on my county board. I chose the latter.
Got it, thanks.
Too often these days, primary election choices also involve a sort of “meta-choice” where you have to decide whether it’s more important to support one reasonably sane and honest Democrat over another reasonably sane and honest Democrat, or support a halfway-reasonable Republican over a complete trumpy nutjob.
I personally am fortunate to live in a blue enclave of a purple region of a blue state so I haven’t had to worry about crossover voting ethical responsibilities yet, but for a lot of Democrats it’s a serious matter.
Yep. Sometimes the other side wins elections.
Elections are not sports. They have actual consequences. It’s not about “the other side” winning. It’s about what the winners plan to do. And, as the OP points out, they plan to do a lot of extremely harmful things, e.g. dismantling public health services, which will cause people to get sick and die. All because they believe their ideology over science.
Hell, both sides in this case were “the other side” as far as the OP is concerned. What they care about is the harm to their community. Not who wins the metaphorical baseball game.
How odd, I read the OP. He seems to care. I care too.
Do you wear the coat?
I have no idea what you are trying to ask. Excuse me, I have to go to work.
Nobody disputed that.
Posting a lackadaisical “sometimes the other side wins” comment belies this statement.
All too often “my conscience! Not yours!”
You might be surprised. If nothing else, their kids may be spending most days after school there, until the parents get home. And it’s a lot of people’s best source of internet access; rural areas often have very poor access outside of town, and libraries generally provide it for free; as well as minimal-charge printing and copying services, job-hunting services, etc.
Many rural areas have no Democratic primary, because either there’s no Democratic candidate at all, or the party could only scrape up one person willing to run so there’s no need for a primary. It’s very common in my area – in New York you can’t cross over, so I often have no primaries to vote in, especially in off years.
I expect there are some areas where the equivalent’s true in reverse and there’s often a Democratic primary but no Republican primary.
Yes, he cares that a trumpy-nutjob Republican candidate (several of them, in fact) got elected instead of the incumbent law-abiding and rational Republicans who he acknowledges had been doing an effective job of running the county government well. He wasn’t particularly caring that his own preferred “side”, namely the Democrats, were completely out of the running from the get-go because the area is solidly Republican.
That situation (which is unfortunately endemic in US politics these days) is not merely “Eh, sometimes the other side wins elections.” It’s “Sometimes the other side gets taken over by a bunch of Trump-idolizing reality-denying conspiracy-theorist proto-fascist wackadoodles, so that the relatively reasonable and public-spirited faction of the other side no longer has any control over them.” That is a much more serious problem than the dismissive way you’re trying to spin it.
Good points. Ignorance fought.
For years (my wife’s entire life, and the 36 years I was married to her) we enjoyed a family property just north of the area described. We had other friends who lived even further NE (Big Rapids), in a district where dams fail and Representatives are lunatics.
Within the last year, we lost access to the family property.
Given what we perceived of the political climate in the area - not to mention the increasing ambient gunfire - losing access was not all that tough to take. Folk who are not familiar with the area might not appreciate the extent of the political climate. We are happy to vacation elsewhere.
I feel for the OP. The county in which I live (DuPage, IL) was long the reddest red. (Now it is at the very least bluish purple - at least WRT state/national offices.) Most local/county offices are held by Repubs. Sure, an occasional goofball will say/do something stupid, but they are generally of the non-extreme ilk.
While I would prefer otherwise, I can tolerate conservative representatives - SO LONG AS THEY ARE MINIMALLY COMPETENT AND INTERESTED IN DOING THEIR JOBS! I’m hoping the OP’s new elected officials will show some minimum competence and dedication to perform THE ENTIRE SCOPE of their duties, rather than simply pushing an extreme perspective on a narrow range of issues.