Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Obi-Jon]

... The worst vote I ever cast was for Ross Perot in 1992. I think he ended up with about 16% of the Presidential vote, but he certainly cost Daddy Bush a second term. That gave us Hillary, and Bill, and Gore and then Obama. Clinton got only 43% of the vote. Bad mistake by me and the other 16% who basically voted against Bush 41 because he promised not to raise taxes and then did so.....

Not true. By all impartial surveys, Perot sucked an equal amount of overall votes from both sides, having a net effect of zero on the election. To say that the 16% voted against Bush alone is absurd. Perot was a small scale populist who gave Dems a chance to vote against Clinton and Repubs a chance to vote against Bush without voting for "the other guy". Perot was entertainment value with no effect on the election. He did show that a 3rd party can garner support above 15%.

2000 was a different story. In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Green Party Nader received 97,421 left wing votes. Pat Buchanan received 17,484 hard right votes and Harry Browne received 16,415 Libertarian votes. Do the math, Nader was responsible for Gore's defeat.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I thought he lost due to hanging chads

[Tom W]

The media is assigning way too much credit to Trump (IMO) for recent primary results when what I believe is at play here is an across America rejection of, in particular, radical progressive ideologies, as well as the D's penchant to advance the administrative and nanny state through legislation and, failing that, the courts.

Bingo! It's downright hysterical that the elitist Ds fail so miserably to grasp the simple concept that there's actually a sizable part of the USA in which people think that they're completely full of shit. So, even though they won't listen, it's not about Trump - but keep it up.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Not true. By all impartial surveys, Perot sucked an equal amount of overall votes from both sides, having a net effect of zero on the election. To say that the 16% voted against Bush alone is absurd. Perot was a small scale populist who gave Dems a chance to vote against Clinton and Repubs a chance to vote against Bush without voting for "the other guy". Perot was entertainment value with no effect on the election. He did show that a 3rd party can garner support above 15%.

2000 was a different story. In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Green Party Nader received 97,421 left wing votes. Pat Buchanan received 17,484 hard right votes and Harry Browne received 16,415 Libertarian votes. Do the math, Nader was responsible for Gore's defeat.

Didn't Gore contest the election ad nauseam...taking the country through hell for several weeks? I missed the backlash on Gore for that...and Hitlary...and Stacey Abrams...

[Da Geezer]

Not true. By all impartial surveys, Perot sucked an equal amount of overall votes from both sides, having a net effect of zero on the election. To say that the 16% voted against Bush alone is absurd. Perot was a small scale populist who gave Dems a chance to vote against Clinton and Repubs a chance to vote against Bush without voting for "the other guy". Perot was entertainment value with no effect on the election. He did show that a 3rd party can garner support above 15%.

2000 was a different story. In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Green Party Nader received 97,421 left wing votes. Pat Buchanan received 17,484 hard right votes and Harry Browne received 16,415 Libertarian votes. Do the math, Nader was responsible for Gore's defeat.

What "impartial surveys". How about posting one?

I agree with your assertion about 2000 though. Nader cost Gore Florida. That is one reason the Ds have quit funding the Green party. The same analysis about the Libertarian Party costing the Rs can be done.

My point was about single-member districts. I believe a binary choice best reflects the public will assuming there is a legitimate winnowing process to arrive at the final two.

[Obi-Jon]

That's a pretty elitist Repub POV, Tom. I would say there are equal sized electorate associated with both parties that know the other side is predominantly full of shit. The MAGA crowd/Trumpsters hold at least a 33% bloc, pretty much an insurmountable advantage for anyone not willing to lick Trump's scrotum. And these Trumpsters are the most vocal bloc. Come drive through my neck of the woods Tom. You can see people walking the side of the road wearing flak jackets with Trump bumper stickers on them. My road tee's off a main road. At that tee, the homeowner has three 8 foot flags right by the road - "Beware of Trump Voter", "Trump 2024", and "Kill the Libs". To pooh-pooh the influence on the GOP that the former 1st Criminal has is to ignore reality.

[Da Geezer]

Bingo! It's downright hysterical that the elitist Ds fail so miserably to grasp the simple concept that there's actually a sizable part of the USA in which people think that they're completely full of shit. So, even though they won't listen, it's not about Trump - but keep it up.

Do you mean there are actually American citizens who don't want their children groomed by transgenders when they are in first grade OR
Overt racism with CRT in schools OR
an open border OR
suffocation of the O+G industry OR
$ 400 Billion spent on climate change OR
the "record-breaking efficiency" of the surrender in Afghanistan OR

Really, you think?

Ghengis is bought and paid for. Always has been.

[Tom W]

Nah, it's pretty much a view of the real world, and not some observations from an area where people have moved to get away from the sprawl and sesspools of places like Detroit or Flint. Step away from it (and stay away from the equally demented, but oppositely projected prog centers) and you'll find that people are really getting fed up with the nonsense being served to them - even though they've got better things to do than be fixated on performing perverse acts of affection on DJT.

[Jeff Buchanan]

You're claiming she lost because of her policies and her disloyalty to Trump is irrelevant.

First, unlike most of us here, voters, and in this case I'm talking about Wyoming voters, have no clue what Cheney's voting record on specific legislation relating to furthering or limiting the nanny or administrative state is in Congress. If they did, they'd probably have kept her in office. In terms of ideology, she has a very conservative voting record. That's not the reason she failed to hold her seat in Congress.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/liz_cheney/412732

Now compare Cheney's ideology score to Rashida Talib:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...a_tlaib/412787.

Rashid, among other radical progressives is representative of the class of candidates I believe are being rejected by American voters in the primaries. The point is that most voters are not swayed by the specifics of a candidates legislative activities but rather what, in general, they perceive a candidate's values and political ideologies are. Do those ideologies resonate? If they do, they have that voters vote.

Voters form these views from various sources, some not particularly reliable. Nevertheless, perceptions, not specifics generally drive the electorate's choices. Do you disagree with that? Of course there are exceptions in the small number of voters who are well informed and are swayed to one candidate or another by actually studying how a candidate voted or wrote in a published article and if those are a reflection of a voter's own political views.

In Wyoming, I'd argue that voter sentiment that got Hageman elected was almost certainly local and had little to do with whether voters rejected Cheney because she isn't conservative enough (she is very conservative) or was strongly anti-Trump. They elected Hagerman because she has a record of being a huge supporter of Wyoming economic interests and also fiercely resists efforts by environmentalists - and these efforts are well funded from out of state - to ruin the state's economy by government over-regulation of the oil, farming and cattle industries. They probably saw Cheney as less interested in local issues in comparison..... and I don't think there is any doubt that voters perceived she was distracted from addressing the issues of Wyoming voters with her activities involving the Congressionally directed January 6th investigation. As a matter of fact, as I get to know Hagerman, pushing that point, was central to her campaign.

As far as your question,

can you be a little more specific about the Prog policies and nanny state legislation Liz Cheney voted for that Harriet Hageman is against?

The last two D administrations have advanced the growth of the administrative and nanny state. Creating government that tells citizens what to do, that government is smarter than the average joe and therefore telling the jimmys and joes how to act is a corner stone of the kind of liberalism advanced by the l likes of Bernie Sanders among many others. Do you deny that fundamental point?

You and I may disagree with some of the things Hannibal posts as representing extreme views but by-in large he is right about trends in national, state and local governance that values free shit for everyone (transfer of wealth), progressive tax policy (again transfer of wealth) and things like the national approach to mitigating the SARS2 Pandemic - perfect example of government telling citizens who are assumed by the political elite to be too dumb to know how to act in the face of a PH emergency. You have to be kidding me if you don't see all of these examples as creating an administrative, nanny state. - you either are an advocate of this shit or know this, I'm thinking the later, so GTFO with that question.

I mentioned in my post that it was my recollection that a recent poll that asked R's if they supported a conservative ideology because they supported Donald Trump and his championing of these or whether they supported conservative ideologies but did not support DJT. It was something like 60/40 did not support Trump. That is an acknowledgement that somewhere around 40% of the US electorate is pro-Trump and blindly support him - so, yes, of course, that sort of blind loyalty to that fucktard is relevant and it probably played a minor, but not swing, part in the contest between Cheney and Hageman. Local interests of the voters in Wyoming and Hageman's appeal to those voters got Cheney canned.

[Dr. Strangelove]

In Wyoming, I'd argue that voter sentiment that got Hageman elected was almost certainly local and had little to do with whether voters rejected Cheney because she isn't conservative enough (she is very conservative) or was strongly anti-Trump. They elected Hagerman because she has a record of being a huge supporter of Wyoming economic interests and also fiercely resists efforts by environmentalists - and these efforts are well funded from out of state - to ruin the state's economy by government over-regulation of the oil, farming and cattle industries. They probably saw Cheney as less interested in local issues in comparison..... and I don't think there is any doubt that voters perceived she was distracted from addressing the issues of Wyoming voters with her activities involving the Congressionally directed January 6th investigation. As a matter of fact, as I get to know Hagerman, pushing that point, was central to her campaign.

Her record? She's never been elected to political office before. Wasn't even a state legislator.

This is all nonsense. She's going to be the Rep of Wyoming because Trump said vote for her, not Liz. Period. If Liz had "stayed loyal" to Trump and praised him to the high heavens, Hageman probably doesn't even run, let alone win.

[Dr. Strangelove]

There's a new Marquette poll out today. Marquette is usually pretty accurate when it comes to predicting how Wisconsin votes.This one today (the first since June) is definitely contrary to conventional wisdom though because it shows the Dem doing better in the Senate race.

WISCONSIN GOV

June: Evers (D) 48%, Michels (R) 41%
August: Evers (D) 45%, Michels (R) 43%

WISCONSIN SENATE

June: Barnes (D) 46%, Johnson (R) 44%
August: Barnes (D) 51%, Johnson (R) 44%

[Jeff Buchanan]

Her record? She's never been elected to political office before. Wasn't even a state legislator.

This is all nonsense. She's going to be the Rep of Wyoming because Trump said vote for her, not Liz. Period. If Liz had "stayed loyal" to Trump and praised him to the high heavens, Hageman probably doesn't even run, let alone win.

Were' going to disagree on the factors that got Hageman elected. You are correct she has held no elected office. But, she has campaigned for office (She ran for Governor) and practiced law in the state of Wyoming with the same interests - water and environmental law - as my Marine buddy who is also a practicing Wyoming attorney. Before the primary I spoke to him about Hageman. He endorsed her and thinks Trump is dangerous.

You're claiming, "she's going to be the Rep of Wyoming (solely implied) because Trump said vote for her." That played a part (the 60/40 argument I offered above) but it is no way the primary reason for her win (IMO). It would seem, you're falling prey to the media's terribly biased messaging that Trump is some master puppeteer of the R universe so, be scared of him all you liberals. He's not and he is less politically scary than the press wants to make him out to be. In my original post, I'm calling that messaging out.

Trump won Wyoming, creaming Biden 76% to 27% - it's a Trump state, no doubt. Hageman played to that voter cohort too but her support for Trump was subdued according to my Lawyer Marine buddy but I have no doubt in my mind a key factor in her election was her appeal to Wyoming voters on important local issues to a greater degree (60/40 again) than that she was a Trump supporter - and she is. In support of those local issues over her long legal and political activist career she carried the day. You can read about Hageman's "record" I referred to in my post here:

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/08...ney-pro-trump/

[lineygoblue]

If Trump announces he's running for reelection do you want DeSantis to stand aside or challenge him?

I'll vote for DeSantis over Trump if I get that opportunity.

I was unable to vote for my preferred R candidate in the last two presidential primaries here in Michigan because the one I wanted had already gotten out of the race before voting day.

[Da Geezer]

I want DeSantis to challenge Trump in 2024. I don't think there are anywhere near as many Trumpsters as the media and the progs think there are. DeSantis has been a great governor and deserves to be nominated for the Presidency. I've never been a believer in the wait-your-turn hierarchy. Obama took on Hillary when it was "her turn" and handily defeated her. DeSantis will do the same with Trump/

[Da Geezer]

Ohio savages: But athletic, I bet

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/wild-wonder-wheel-573980