Except there is the Quorum Call so if the presiding officer did not give permission to be absent they can have the missing members arrested and brought to the floor.
Someone elsewhere noticed that the same people who told Kaepernick to stick to sports haven’t said that to Walker.
While I agree, it is not worthless for Republicans due to the above, I dont think most of the voting public will think that much about it. So, I would still change my vote to Warnock.
(Sorry for the earlier post saying Walker, meant Warnock).
We’ll see, I’m certainly no Republican political strategist. But I feel it’s a pretty cardinal sin of politics to abandon your party’s candidate unless they are well behind and those resources are needed elsewhere. Neither is true in the Georgia runoff.
Excluded middle.
Abandon? No. But invest heavily in either dollars or the national heavyweights spending much effort? Also no. Kemp’s get out their vote machine is the most important support he’ll get.
Trump might show. But then McConnell’s nightmare might be a Walker win that Trump claims shows his power. And Trump there would more likely ramp up the D side more than the Rs.
Somebody ought to produce a video montage of Walker making an ass of himself intercut with “stick to sports” comments from the taking-a-knee “controversy”.
All right. Arguing over what constitutes Republicans “really” fighting to elect Walker is pointless – in any campaign, you could always have done more. Whatever the parties are going to do, they have an incredibly tight window to do it given the runoff is on Dec. 6 and Thanksgiving plans will be competing for voters’ attention.
I was thinking something similar. McConnell almost certainly wants DeSantis to take the 2024 nomination in a cakewalk. The stronger Trump emerges from this year, the likelier it is that Trump will present a formidable challenge to DeSantis. And Walker is Trump’s candidate through-and-through.
So the MAGA branch is going to want Walker to win; but the DeSantis/McConnell branch has some good reasons to slow-roll the race.
I don’t think that’ll be enough for them to engage in active sabotage; but it might be enough to dampen their enthusiasm and get them to focus on other efforts.
Even though the Dems have already won the senate, a Warnock win means the spoiler power of the Machin/Sinema duo is drastically reduced. That’s bad for the GOP.
But a moron Senator is a much greater liability to the party than a moron Congressman, and who knows whether Walker will be a useful idiot or an uncontrollable one? Someone will definitely whisper in his ear that he could wield a lot of power if only he holds back his vote at the right moments.
I think McConnell would rather deal with a 51-49 split than six years of Walker. Four years of Trump got him control of the Supreme Court and vast swaths of federal benches. Two more years out of power won’t be that bad, especially considering their likely control of the house and the Democrat’s general inability to take advantage of majorities in either house.
Meanwhile, 2024 is tough for the Dems. If the GOP somehow manages to keep the primary from exploding too badly, they might be able to look towards retaking the Senate and the White House all at once.
So I vote for “nominal support, but try to avoid giving Walker too much attention and no big deal if Warnock wins.”
I think you meant “Representative” rather than “Congressman” there, otherwise I agree.
I’d like to see a Republican primary with DeSantis, Trump, and Chris Christie debating each other. It might be have to be a steel cage event!
A Congressman (Congresswoman/Congressperson) is a representative.
Technically, Senators are also Congresspersons (as “Congress” refers to both the House and the Senate), but yes, the term is usually used for members of the House (and Senators are usually just called “Senators”).
Even so, I’ve seen people use “Representative” instead of “Congressperson,” for clarity.
“Congressperson” is the term you use when you want to imply you might be a Senator, but you’re really just a Representative. 
Technically, as in based on the literal definition of the word, sure. But in practice, members of the House are called congress[person] or representative, members of the Senate are called senators.
I mean heck, it goes both ways. A senator is also a representative, since they represent their state. But again, that’s only the literal definition of the word.
Here’s another cite - an internal style guide for USDOT.
(4) Use the title Senator for a female member of the Senate, or Senator-elect and use the title of Congresswoman for a female member of the U. S. House of Representatives, Congresswoman-elect.
“Congressman” is never used in regard to a Senator. A Congressperson/man/woman is a member of the House of Representatives. A Senator is a member of the Senate. Both are members of Congress, but they’re not both Congressmen/women/persons.
Every credible definition I see is that it’s usually used for a representative, but to say it’s “never” used for a Senator just isn’t accurate. Rather, it’s rare.
Gah, I did not mean to hijack this thread dammit. 
Well, if you referred to a Senator as “Congressman,” you’d be corrected. It’s not interchangeable. I suppose any further discussion should go elsewhere.
Moderating:
Indeed it should. Thanks for recognizing and abating the hijack.