And what those outside the party need to do is is keep them from pivoting their message given in the primary to a more moderate one in the general. The Republican candidate for state senate came knocking on my door Friday before the election* and we talked for only a minute – I told him it was too late to persuade me since my ballot was already in and counted so he’d spend his time better elsewhere.
I mention some denier claims I’d seen in the primary literature – independent voters in Arizona can vote in any party’s primary so I get targeted – he said that wasn’t his but, “people who thought they were doing me a favor.”
I mean, I don’t like Republican policies in general but at least we’d be rid of the insane stuff, like Lake wanting the state to secceed.
*To his credit, he was the only candidate for any office in either party who’d bothered to do so.
Should this really be considered a point of judgment for a candidate? I really would wonder whether a candidate who showed up at my door had too much time on es hands. And frankly I don’t think I would learn anything valuable from such an exchange.
Stopping by random people’s houses in person and chitchatting isn’t an important part of an elected official’s job, especially when the constituency has over 100,000 people.
I’ve had my local state rep and state senator come by to introduce themselves, ask which issues are most important to me, etc. I appreciated the chance to meet them and speak in person. I doubt it would make me vote for a Republican for obvious reasons but it probably swayed my primary vote. I didn’t think they lacked for things to do since campaigning is one of the things politicians do. Plus I don’t think one should underestimate the value of “I met that person and they seemed human and pleasant” when all you’ve seen of the other person is campaign fliers and plastic road signs.
If it’s important to winning relative to other things, I imagine more of them would do it.
But as a voter I would rather they didn’t waste their time or mine on my doorstep trying to what? Sweet talk me? Just send me a list of your policy positions. That’s what is important to me, not whatever it is you’re trying to do by speaking to me personally.
So how is it a credit to this one candidate that E ended up on your doorstep? If they all do it and they have to to win, why give credit to one just for somehow ending up on your doorstep instead of someone else’s?
Because that’s the way human nature works. To repeat: people in general (maybe not you) are far more likely to vote for someone they’ve met in person. Especially if that person seems to want a short but honest discussion with the voter about his/her concerns. So every candidate tries to meet as many voters as possible during their campaign. Of course, they have other responsibilities but campaigning for votes is one of the main things politicians do.
I’d rather that a candidate be out meeting the people who will be affected by their decisions than with the people who donate money to their campaign.
It shouldn’t stop after the election. One of the Boston NPR stations has a local show that does “ask the mayor” and “ask the governor” segments about once a month. Anybody can call in and ask a question; they often get a straight answer, or a promise to follow up. I think it’s a real risk that politicians only meet with donors, special interests, property developers, movers and shakers, etc., and lose touch with ordinary constituents.
I think this is lacking in context. From Politifact:
Biden’s floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn’t argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
The Biden rule, which amounts to postponing appointments in the weeks before an election until after the election is over- is a far cry from the McConnell rule, which is that Republican Senates will never confirm a Democratic president’s Supreme Court justices.
I don’t disagree. But I am in the camp of I don’t want them ringing my doorbell. Local candidates here held meetings and pancake breakfasts at local parks and at other public spaces - if I wanted to meet them and hear their spiel, I would make an effort to do so. I consider canvassers equal to proselytizers and door-to-door sales-critters and if they ignore the sign at my door they are going to get the door closed in their face.
Please refrain from making gendered insults. Call her a jerk, a lump of stupid or a lying tool like her father. “Sow” is no different than “bitch.” Thanks.
I don’t think they’ll have the votes for this bullshit, although they might try. Didn’t 5 or 6 of the Republican House members that voted to impeach Trump get re-elected? That would be enough to stop Biden impeachment votes and stuff like appointing Trump as speaker.
One important metric as we try to read tea-leaves in NV and AZ is how the candidates did relative to Biden in counties that have completed their count.
In Arizona, Kelly is running ahead of Biden in the three counties completed. And, critically, Hobbs is too. If that holds in Maricopa (where we really need to see some Election Day early votes - oxymoron I know) then Hobbs and Kelly will both win.
In Nevada it’s more mixed, with CCM running ahead in some and Laxalt in some. It will all come down to Clark, of course, where she is currently +6%. Biden won Clark by 5%. That could be a good sign (she’s beating Biden) or a bad sign (the remaining Clark votes are relatively pro-Laxalt).