I just got 3 mailings from Rebecca Whiting (Libertarian candidate for Senate for MN) – basically calling Republican Michele Tafoya a RINO. I didn’t pay much attention because a) I pretty much ignore these mailings and b) I have already voted (I usually vote in person but will be out of town on election day)
I do wonder how many votes Whiting will pull away from Tafoya
Brian
I’ve gotten through the whole election season without hearing any outrageously stupid, racist, and/or fascistic things from Tafoya, so it’s probably fair to call her a RINO.
They’re now trying their best to torpedo El Sayed’s campaign with a recycled ad from Cenk’s abortion of a presidential campaign. After a skit where a couple can’t buy eggs because of Israel, a voiceover announces that “Mike Rogers is for (((They/Them)))”. Yes, they got the triple parantheses dogwhistle in audible form (specifically through a throat clear before “they/them”).
El Sayed has disavowed the ad and clarified that his own campaign had absolutely no connection to it, but between his nephew insisting that El Sayed is lying to his voters and Cenk’s ad, you really do have to wonder if that family has it out for El Sayed.
Oh, I see I’m not the first to mention this ad:
Actually, I see that I’m not even the second:
Yeah, I am very glad that El Sayed shows better judgement than that.
There’s a real Poe’s Law problem on the left, as you can see above - someone can make an ad with the craziest, most mathematically incoherent racial invective possible, like Jews Stole My Bananas, to the point that the majority of people see it as an obvious attempt to sabotage the campaign from within, and the DSA wing of the Democratic coalition will go “yeah, that’s not only a great ad that perfectly expresses my actual beliefs, but something I earnestly believe will hurt the ‘fuckers’ and help my candidate!”
There’s a real Poe’s Law problem on both flanks of the horseshoe.
You could argue that the ad is simply critical of Israel without being anti-semitic right up until the throat clearing (which is why no one talked about the ad when Cenk used it without the voiceover for his own campaign, I guess). But the throat clear makes it completely obvious what they are doing.
I assume you mean less slimy rather than skinny ;), and yes, I agree. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And no, the NYT isn’t ‘out to get’ anyone. Sleazy is sleazy, no matter who does it.
NYT is absolutely out to get people. I remember the feeding frenzy after Biden’s bad debate, where they implied he had Parkinson’s based on a neurology expert visiting the White House.
Meanwhile Trump’s obvious cognitive decline, and tons of credible rape allegations against him that just dropped, are treated as a non-story.
Ten years removed from Clinton’s email “scandal” it’s beyond obvious how much they adore and protect DJT.
As a former journalist myself, I guess we’ll just have to disagree then.
^ This. ^
(ETA: I agree with JDYanYan.)
The Republicans pulled this trick in a Florida election in 2020 - their fake guy got 6,000 votes in an election the Dem lost by 32. And, even worse, the FL GOP paid the guy to do this, which is illegal.
Did the NYT reference this? (No, of course they didn’t.) Fuck those guys.
I wonder if this will backfire as badly as the other story.
It really does seem like they are digging to find something that will stick on her? Her being a bad boss (in the period right after her husband died) with crickets that were food for a pet chameleon escaping, horrible, didn’t derail her. I really can’t not imagine an editor yelling at staff: “Dig! Find something!”
Again no accusation that anything done was done under her direction, and the accusation that she nevertheless knew about it at some point has been recanted by the one person who claimed it.
I don’t know what this means.
It’s a meme you share when someone does something that’s supposed to be viewed as bad but you think is actually good to have done.
I don’t know why you think they should. Is there some particular relevance that case has over all others?
It is sleazy no matter who does it (and yes, in the case you cite, illegal because the ghost candidate was paid. The guy who orchestrated it was convicted).
The message it sends to me (and I very much doubt I am the only one) is that the operatives and/or the candidate don’t have enough confidence in the candidate’s ability to prevail in the election on their own merits, so they resort to these sorts of tactics. It’s not a good look, regardless of what anyone thinks of the news outlet that points it out.
And it turns out they in fact did report on it. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/us/florida-senate-race-fraud.html.
I don’t think the story will have a major impact, but this reflexive attacking on generally hard working and underpaid journalists because they report news we don’t like I just find so obnoxious. It was the same thing with Platner and yes Biden. Democrats I think have just gotten so defensive of fake news that it is hard to accept when their candidates have actual flaws.
This could be its own spin off topic because someone could devote hours to tracking down the times uneven coverage.
if there’s ever a “NYT loves Trump and wants him to win” topic. I think I could probably give myself carpal tunnel putting up examples.
In the meantime, I’d love to see how much ink the times spills about this.
As if she could be unaware of the fact that a nobody with almost the same name as the Republican candidate got on the ballot? Of course she was aware. Everyone in the country who pays any attention at all to politics was aware.
It’s stupid anyway, because Alaska uses IRV, which makes such shenanigans extremely unlikely to work.
It might even make it easier for Dan Sullivan because there might be people who want to make damn sure that Dan Sullivan wins and so vote for them both, and a non-zero number of these might have listed Peltola as a second choice. I guess the chance of that depends on the details of how the instant runoff works.