Normally, I'd interpret this as a call for me to vote Harris on the top of the ticket, and GOP the rest of the way down, even the lickspittles and hostages.
The problem is that we sit a new Congress BEFORE the certification of the Electoral votes, and I don't have ANY confidence that the GOP left standing on that day will do the right thing if Harris is victorious, so I have to worry about that vote before I can start counting on them to balance out the new Harris administration.
Normally this would be an EASY choice, but Trump's insistence that supporters follow him over the Big Lie Cliff has screwed Republicans who would otherwise be easy folks to vote for.
Do you live in one of those rare precincts in Illinois where a Republican vote might count?
Barring outright civil rebellion, all the rants of a losing party will not matter once the states certify their electoral vote count. The role of Congress is to be first-hand witnesses to what the state legislatures and governors are attesting. The courts have ruled that is the case.
In order to make it impossible for the GOP to object to state electoral counts at certification, there would have to be zero Republicans serving (or few enough that the requisite 20% in both chambers wouldn't sign on). I understand that it would only take a straight majority of both houses to sustain the objections, but that means a net 5 GOP House seats would have to flip, and of the 23 Democrat Senate seats up for election (3 of which are open races), Republicans would have to flip zero.
You're calling for a one-party Anschluss of Congress and Executive. The exact thing I warned about earlier in the week. I'm not sure that's possible, but it's what seems to make you feel safe.
Let me rephrase this another way (after having a couple more days to roll your response around in my head). In the post prior to this one, you argued that you have no obligation to vote for Harris, as you did your duty voting against Trump in the primaries and that's ALL that you're obligated to do.
My view is similar. My obligation (as someone worried less about Trump, but more about someone who will follow in his election-denying footsteps) is to continue voting against candidates that view questioning our elections as a valid play in their "getting elected" playbook. The reason you see this as me calling for a merger of the Legislative and Executive branches is because the GOP is SO FAR down the election-denying path, that the only folks who meet my criteria for basic consideration of support are all on the Democratic side. This is not a position that I called for or am responsible for - it's 100% the responsibility of the Republicans who thought that One Weird Trick of Questioning Elections was a shortcut to power for them or their party.
The ball is in the GOP's court on this one - the little agency that I can exercise to influence them is voting for candidates (Democratic or Republican) who share the same basic respect for elections that we took for granted before 2016 (and esp. 2020). That's MY responsibility - not saving the country from the bad choices a unified Democratic executive and legislative branch that might happen if the GOP is routed due to their poor choices.
I'm just calling for Republicans who can inspire enough confidence in me that they'll do the right thing when it matters. We used to have a few of those, but not so many anymore.
I think there's a very low probability of the kind of election flip Chris described, as in asymptotic to zero, given the act passed in 2022 to prevent that kind of thing. So we're at the point of "¿quien es mas MAGA?"
As I said, there's lots of hostage-tape endorsers and closet objectors saying the right things, but true MAGA candidates tend to fail at the ballot box anyway. I'd vote based on that, not based on making Republicans pay (which, again, was my premise for the article everyone got twisted in the knickers about).
Serious question for Steve, David and Jay: Would you rather write a column where you get a lot of comments or only a couple?
On a far more intense note, trump had this to say at his Bedminster golf course yesterday:
"No, he continued, the Medal of Freedom is “actually much better” than the Medal of Honor, he said.
Because everyone [who] gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they’re soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead. She gets it, and she’s a healthy, beautiful woman, and they’re rated equal, but she got the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
Let that sink in for just a little bit eh? The Medal of Freedom (passed out like candy of late) is way better than the Medal of Honor awarded to service members wounded or killed in the line of duty. Tip of the hat to William Kristol at The Bulwark for this haunting look into the pea brain of the man who wants to be president.
And that's why Harris should get your vote, trump belongs nowhere near the White House; EVER.
I think we all agree that we appreciate the comments. Y’all give us a lot of food for thought. We also appreciate that yall are nice to each other since we also do our own moderating.
I would write more if I disciplined myself to publish weekly on a certain day and maybe with a broad repeating theme. Thanks for the vote of confidence. As long as I am writing for myself, I will not worry about amount of comments. I do very much enjoy our band of commentators and the consistent and varied viewpoints and personality provided. Thanks for asking.
It's funny, as i was laying in bed last night i was thinking about how we tend to put people in boxes, stereotypes are real. Your response about not caring one way or the other about comments strikes me as how or what a "Libertarian" would say.
On the other hand, conservatives came with an assigned set of values, as did liberals. Right or wrong, as an old person i liked when people fit into them. It was comfortable and my expectations were seldom wrong.
And then along came trump. Norms were shattered with every step he took. The oddity with him, there is no one size fits all, but his antics are one dimensional. He'll never change. He is who and what he is.
I also lay awake thinking about this past month's events. There were two really old guys running for president. Now there's only one, and he is mentally unstable. I like norms, i like predictable. Maybe it's just because i am old.
Age creates experience, which is valuable. But someone like Trump comes along and poisons the well for norms we previously did not have great worry, such as power transition. Difficult to undue the worry. States’ rights did not go back in the toolbox the same for many folks after Jim Crow. Demagogue like Trump talks to many real concerns for folks, and for me poisons the well. Such a shame.
Steve, You maintain Harris does not want "conservative votes." For the majority of my 38 voting years, I have voted Repblican. I hear the term "conservative" battered around all the time.
Looking at Congressman Mike Johnson's page. He lists 7 principles of conservatism and I struggle to understand how the Republican Party is actually respecting those principles.
Individual Freedom- How are Republicans promoting this? In many ways it seems the attitude is freedom for me and not for thee.
Limited Government- Again this seems a principle which the party narrowly defines as it seems they want limited government except when it comes to dictating which Individual Freedoms are to be allowed.
The Rule of Law- After Jan 6 and the party turning a blind eye and supporting Trump for another Term in the Oval Office, I think this principle has been discarded.
Peace through Strength- Where was the strength when they killed the bipartsan border bill in order to keep our border vulnerable and to exploit those vulnerabilities to further Trump's campaign interests? Where is peace through strength in refusing to provide support for Ukraine?
Fiscal Responsibility- What is responsible about more tax cuts while expanding the federal debt and deficit? Noone seeks to decrease their income while trying to pay off debt. What is fiscally responsible about calling for 10-20% flat tariffs which will undoubtedly harm consumers and businesses; not to mention the further harm that would be inflicted by retaliatory taxes.
Free Markets- We sure seem to have a lot of businesses that are just at the edge of being monopolies. Hundreds of corporate logos are well known across the nation as local mom and pop businesses have been decimated.
Human Dignity- Another principle that seems to discriminate against people who the party deems immoral or irresponsible. This principle as described on Johnson's page says a just government "embraces the vital cultural influences of religion" while the Republican Party unabashedly promotes its own form of Christianity such that a large number of Republican voters believe one cannot be a Christian and vote for a Democrat. They push forward laws and policies that disenfranchised a large percentage of the population.
I don't believe the Republican Party has always been this way, but things began to change 40+ years ago.
I'll say it again, if only MAGA meant going back to being the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. I hope that the monster into which the once GOP has morphed will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history. They have lost their way. Harris/Walz 2024
Indeed they have and irony of using Mike Johnson's own page against him shows/screams the hypocrisy of it all. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out S G.
To note: it's highly likely the Senate and House switch hands, with the GOP holding the Senate majority and the Democrats the House. The Dems would have to win every swing state and either manage to hold on to John Tester's seat, or flip Ted Cruz and Rick Scott's seats ('cause Joe Manchin's seat in West Virginia is going GOP).
Normally, I'd interpret this as a call for me to vote Harris on the top of the ticket, and GOP the rest of the way down, even the lickspittles and hostages.
The problem is that we sit a new Congress BEFORE the certification of the Electoral votes, and I don't have ANY confidence that the GOP left standing on that day will do the right thing if Harris is victorious, so I have to worry about that vote before I can start counting on them to balance out the new Harris administration.
Normally this would be an EASY choice, but Trump's insistence that supporters follow him over the Big Lie Cliff has screwed Republicans who would otherwise be easy folks to vote for.
Yes it is an effort to sort through the rubble of the GOP, even at the state level.
Do you live in one of those rare precincts in Illinois where a Republican vote might count?
Barring outright civil rebellion, all the rants of a losing party will not matter once the states certify their electoral vote count. The role of Congress is to be first-hand witnesses to what the state legislatures and governors are attesting. The courts have ruled that is the case.
I vote for Republicans here when they aren't insane. Cast a vote for Kathy Salvi last cycle.
But if you're a Stop the Steal kind of candidate who repeats Trump's election lies, you automatically lose my vote.
In order to make it impossible for the GOP to object to state electoral counts at certification, there would have to be zero Republicans serving (or few enough that the requisite 20% in both chambers wouldn't sign on). I understand that it would only take a straight majority of both houses to sustain the objections, but that means a net 5 GOP House seats would have to flip, and of the 23 Democrat Senate seats up for election (3 of which are open races), Republicans would have to flip zero.
You're calling for a one-party Anschluss of Congress and Executive. The exact thing I warned about earlier in the week. I'm not sure that's possible, but it's what seems to make you feel safe.
Let me rephrase this another way (after having a couple more days to roll your response around in my head). In the post prior to this one, you argued that you have no obligation to vote for Harris, as you did your duty voting against Trump in the primaries and that's ALL that you're obligated to do.
My view is similar. My obligation (as someone worried less about Trump, but more about someone who will follow in his election-denying footsteps) is to continue voting against candidates that view questioning our elections as a valid play in their "getting elected" playbook. The reason you see this as me calling for a merger of the Legislative and Executive branches is because the GOP is SO FAR down the election-denying path, that the only folks who meet my criteria for basic consideration of support are all on the Democratic side. This is not a position that I called for or am responsible for - it's 100% the responsibility of the Republicans who thought that One Weird Trick of Questioning Elections was a shortcut to power for them or their party.
The ball is in the GOP's court on this one - the little agency that I can exercise to influence them is voting for candidates (Democratic or Republican) who share the same basic respect for elections that we took for granted before 2016 (and esp. 2020). That's MY responsibility - not saving the country from the bad choices a unified Democratic executive and legislative branch that might happen if the GOP is routed due to their poor choices.
I'm just calling for Republicans who can inspire enough confidence in me that they'll do the right thing when it matters. We used to have a few of those, but not so many anymore.
That's the real issue with voting for almost any GOP candidate: it empowers MAGA, who is in firm control of the party at this point.
I think there's a very low probability of the kind of election flip Chris described, as in asymptotic to zero, given the act passed in 2022 to prevent that kind of thing. So we're at the point of "¿quien es mas MAGA?"
As I said, there's lots of hostage-tape endorsers and closet objectors saying the right things, but true MAGA candidates tend to fail at the ballot box anyway. I'd vote based on that, not based on making Republicans pay (which, again, was my premise for the article everyone got twisted in the knickers about).
I think there's something to be said about punishing a party electorally for going too far afield, but YMMV.
The question of course is: who in the GOP is still worth voting for? That seems like a small list that is ever-shrinking.
I’ve never heard the shaving cream song but it’s hilarious.
What can I say, I'm uncultured in the fine arts.
Somewhere Larry Glick is smiling.
Will Arnett had a revival of The Gong Show where someone came out and sang "Shaving Cream" every episode.
Serious question for Steve, David and Jay: Would you rather write a column where you get a lot of comments or only a couple?
On a far more intense note, trump had this to say at his Bedminster golf course yesterday:
"No, he continued, the Medal of Freedom is “actually much better” than the Medal of Honor, he said.
Because everyone [who] gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they’re soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead. She gets it, and she’s a healthy, beautiful woman, and they’re rated equal, but she got the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
Let that sink in for just a little bit eh? The Medal of Freedom (passed out like candy of late) is way better than the Medal of Honor awarded to service members wounded or killed in the line of duty. Tip of the hat to William Kristol at The Bulwark for this haunting look into the pea brain of the man who wants to be president.
And that's why Harris should get your vote, trump belongs nowhere near the White House; EVER.
I think we all agree that we appreciate the comments. Y’all give us a lot of food for thought. We also appreciate that yall are nice to each other since we also do our own moderating.
You guys are great!
Right on cue. If I hired the writer's room from SNL, they could not have scripted it better.
In the immortal words of Rickey Ricardo, "splain please?"
Amen and Amen, Bill Pearson!
Guess I do not write for the comments, few or many.
Fair answer. Curious if you wrote more often (which i think you should), would it still be the case?
I would write more if I disciplined myself to publish weekly on a certain day and maybe with a broad repeating theme. Thanks for the vote of confidence. As long as I am writing for myself, I will not worry about amount of comments. I do very much enjoy our band of commentators and the consistent and varied viewpoints and personality provided. Thanks for asking.
It's funny, as i was laying in bed last night i was thinking about how we tend to put people in boxes, stereotypes are real. Your response about not caring one way or the other about comments strikes me as how or what a "Libertarian" would say.
On the other hand, conservatives came with an assigned set of values, as did liberals. Right or wrong, as an old person i liked when people fit into them. It was comfortable and my expectations were seldom wrong.
And then along came trump. Norms were shattered with every step he took. The oddity with him, there is no one size fits all, but his antics are one dimensional. He'll never change. He is who and what he is.
I also lay awake thinking about this past month's events. There were two really old guys running for president. Now there's only one, and he is mentally unstable. I like norms, i like predictable. Maybe it's just because i am old.
Age creates experience, which is valuable. But someone like Trump comes along and poisons the well for norms we previously did not have great worry, such as power transition. Difficult to undue the worry. States’ rights did not go back in the toolbox the same for many folks after Jim Crow. Demagogue like Trump talks to many real concerns for folks, and for me poisons the well. Such a shame.
Steve, You maintain Harris does not want "conservative votes." For the majority of my 38 voting years, I have voted Repblican. I hear the term "conservative" battered around all the time.
Looking at Congressman Mike Johnson's page. He lists 7 principles of conservatism and I struggle to understand how the Republican Party is actually respecting those principles.
Individual Freedom- How are Republicans promoting this? In many ways it seems the attitude is freedom for me and not for thee.
Limited Government- Again this seems a principle which the party narrowly defines as it seems they want limited government except when it comes to dictating which Individual Freedoms are to be allowed.
The Rule of Law- After Jan 6 and the party turning a blind eye and supporting Trump for another Term in the Oval Office, I think this principle has been discarded.
Peace through Strength- Where was the strength when they killed the bipartsan border bill in order to keep our border vulnerable and to exploit those vulnerabilities to further Trump's campaign interests? Where is peace through strength in refusing to provide support for Ukraine?
Fiscal Responsibility- What is responsible about more tax cuts while expanding the federal debt and deficit? Noone seeks to decrease their income while trying to pay off debt. What is fiscally responsible about calling for 10-20% flat tariffs which will undoubtedly harm consumers and businesses; not to mention the further harm that would be inflicted by retaliatory taxes.
Free Markets- We sure seem to have a lot of businesses that are just at the edge of being monopolies. Hundreds of corporate logos are well known across the nation as local mom and pop businesses have been decimated.
Human Dignity- Another principle that seems to discriminate against people who the party deems immoral or irresponsible. This principle as described on Johnson's page says a just government "embraces the vital cultural influences of religion" while the Republican Party unabashedly promotes its own form of Christianity such that a large number of Republican voters believe one cannot be a Christian and vote for a Democrat. They push forward laws and policies that disenfranchised a large percentage of the population.
I don't believe the Republican Party has always been this way, but things began to change 40+ years ago.
I'll say it again, if only MAGA meant going back to being the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. I hope that the monster into which the once GOP has morphed will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history. They have lost their way. Harris/Walz 2024
Indeed they have and irony of using Mike Johnson's own page against him shows/screams the hypocrisy of it all. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out S G.
To note: it's highly likely the Senate and House switch hands, with the GOP holding the Senate majority and the Democrats the House. The Dems would have to win every swing state and either manage to hold on to John Tester's seat, or flip Ted Cruz and Rick Scott's seats ('cause Joe Manchin's seat in West Virginia is going GOP).