"Writing in the name of someone who isn’t running is a popular option. Jonah Goldberg seems to think that it sends a message to the parties that they are unhappy with the options. But that write-in vote may not be counted, depending on the state. If you write in 'Mitt Romney' or 'Mickey Mouse,' the powers-that-be in the parties may never know about it. That candidate certainly has no chance of winning."
In the state of Illinois, if you write in someone whose name does not appear on the list of valid write-in candidates, the vote for that office isn't counted and indistinguishable in the reported numbers from leaving it blank.
This post begs the question (and I mean that in the logical sense of “begging the question”) that the GOP is irredeemable and must be destroyed in its current condition before it can become something akin to conservative values. The majority of Republicans disagree with that argument. Therefore it’s truly a split in conservative circles. The split will lead to Trump losing but not necessarily down ballot races. Once Trump loses, I fully expect the “Conservatives for Kamala” group to pursue those who didn’t publicly oppose the nominee to drive them out of politics. The question is who will be a Jacobin and who will try to salvage what’s left?
I made the comment last night that I want nothing to do with these people. How are you ever going to stuff all these cats back in the same sack? The GOP made a calculation in 2016: they couldn't win NOW without the Trumpists. And they were mostly right. The white rural voters who stayed home in 2012 because they couldn't vote for a Mormon but showed up in droves for Trump made a big difference. I heard Michael Steele once describe how Trump went "fracking" for those voters. That's a gret description of it. And for one singular exception in 2016 this unwieldy coalition held (thanks in large part to the electoral college and an even larger part to Hillary Clinton's utter campaign mismanagement and disinterest from black voters in key states) and Trump won, despite the handful of concsientious objectors like us. But Republicans still don't realize that they got lucky - ONCE. They won't get lucky again. Democrats see Trump coming now. And every single time Trump speaks he drives another former Republican from the GOP. Right now, the Trumpists still outnumber us, so the "establishment" GOP keeps bowing to THEM and hoping they can pressure us to just "get on the train" and scaring us with all the comments about "Communism." But it's not going to work. I voted for Brian Kemp, but there is no way in hell I'm voting for Burt Jones. I never want to attend another state GOP convention with all the gross merchandise I saw at my last one. I'm not going to smile and clap when MTG gives a speech. So instead of the Trumpists not voting, now you have the middle conservatives not voting. Republicans didn't win new voters. They just swapped one group of non voters for a different one. So, what happens when the Trumpists die off or lose interest? Can we purge the party by fire and start over? Or will they continue to limp along election after election, winning only Southern states? Will the suburban women who I was always told are the "backbone of the Republican party" just drift over to the Democrats?
Yes, Steve, the Republican Party needs to go the way of the Whigs. Ever since Trump entered the arena back in 2015, the Republican Party has become unrecognizable from the Reaganite version. I, for one, think it needs to be dissolved, and reconstituted as well as renamed.
I don’t know how the Republican Party could die and I don’t know how a new party could be born without using a lot of the people who are the problem in today’s GOP. In short, I think conservatives are screwed.
You are on fire David, kudos for the courage to step up and be counted. I wrote it the other day, i will say it again here; the 6 degrees of separation from the old Erick days has been amazing to watch. Call it evolution, call it growth, call it whatever you want, but from 2016 till now, its has been stunning to see and read how you guys have morphed into where so many in this country are.
Most people don't do it in such a public way. One of the challenges of exposing your soul openly and often is that it comes at a personal price. Most of us are private. Obviously social media has changed that, but buying in is never easy.
Clearly, The Racket News crew has elected not to bullshit their way to more reads or more likes. How any of you (David, Steve Jay or Merrie) vote is a very personal choice. The fact you open yourselves to the criticism of your readers, based on not just the who, but the why's is instructive for all of us reading along with you.
One of the reasons i struggle with EE is he used to believe "character matters." I get it, his livelihood is directly tied to his base. I know it sounds trite, but you guys write from the passion of your beliefs, not for the revenue (said with a smile).
Character matters. Principles matter. Norms matter. People matter. Unfortunately none of those matter to trump. He simply cares about himself, and himself alone.
Well David, you and the writers finally did it and got me to sign up. I've been following many of you since the the EE days and find the writing and grownup non-tribal conversation here refreshing.
I live in a state that's ground zero right now and just can't for the life of me understand how someone can vote for and relate to someone who demonizes those who don't kiss the ring, yet claims to be about freedom. Who somehow has managed to pander to and then mock the evangical community in the open and yet wins them over in droves. Who demonizes the media for reporting the truths based upon lies unless they pander to him.
I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with regard to red states. Even the reddest of states have gone blue in the face of extremist views on the ballot, enough so that those issues are scaled back now in the party platform. ( See strict Abortion stances for one) If disent on a canadate isn't felt at the primary level, it should be felt at the general by vote of opposition, not abstaining or choosing an unserious canadate. This actually hits them where it hurts and cant be easily explained away. MAGA populism can do the same in the party if they lose enough. The party leaders will soften with the few powerful leaders who are tired of losing or trickle out until the dam breaks and they leave in droves.
Lets face it, they hitched their wagon to win and are in the business to do so. Their loyalty to win is greater than to any one person and they have quietly been paying attention to the losses the last few cycles. If the poll numbers get threatening close in red states, and others drop off they will bail too. Conservative policy and actual personal freedoms don't matter at this point. MAGA uses them for gaslighting purposes only to get votes.
Just my two cents. I used to think I had no dog in this fight since it's not my party, but I miss the old days when respect was mutual regardless and we didn't demonize each other for different thought. We all were better for it, win or lose, and all Americans.
Very interesting to hear a conservative take to the “existential threat to democracy” view of Trump.
Also interesting to read the various conservative viewpoints of the various authors here, and compare/contrast with the likes of Goldberg, and French; as well as non-traditional types like Andrew Sullivan and Richard Hanania.
And on a separate note, extremely refreshing to hear your views on abortion. I’m pro-choice….and my conception of the religious conservative position of pro-life is to give infinite F’s until the first breath, then absolutely 0 F’s immediately thereafter. I can’t recall any conservative expressly disavow that routine as you have here. Kudos for that.
I Agree With You On This One, David. If I Lived In Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania Or Wisconsin, I Would, Probably, Be Voting For Kamala Harris And Then Voting For Non-Trump Cult Conservatives, Down The Ballot. However, I Live, Here, In Alabama And My Vote For Kamala Wouldn't Make A Dang Bit Of Difference. I'll,Probably ( Again ), Wind Up Voting For The Constitution Party Candidate For President, And Then Selectively Voting, Down The Ballot.
With all due respect, sincerely, you're a good guy, but...
"...blocked him..."
"...gunning for them..." What does that mean? How?
"...tried to circumvent..."
And, yet, the guardrails held, right?
This is weak tea.
Why don't you just admit it. You hate Trump with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns. You can't stand the sight of the guy. You want to retch. It's ok; that alone is justification to vote for someone else. So going forward, spare us with the threat to democracy hyperbole.
That's a fair question, and I can't read Trump's mind, but he could throw the country into constitutional chaos just by refusing to abide by injunctions. "Mr Roberts has made his decisionnow let him enforce it."
Maybe that seems unlikely, but five years ago refusing to accept election results and inciting his supporters to attack Congress did as well.
Do I know exactly what Trump would do? No. But I am sure it would be bad.
You might as well have titled your piece "conservatives for communism." That's what it amounts to if you are determined to vote for Kamala Harris. I am a #nevertrumper and a Christian Constitutional Conservative, and it is actually because of that that I won't be joining you in your particular brand of voting insanity. Of course, I will not vote for Donald Trump either. The way I look at it is I'm voting on God's side, and if that means my vote is cast as the ONLY vote for someone, so be it.
I don’t think people who say that understand what communism is. Every Democratic candidate going back at least to Bill Clinton has been labeled as a communist and/or socialist. It’s a Republican trope that has lost all meaning like progressives calling everything racist.
More and more voters are being conditioned to believe that a strong central government is required to take care of their needs. This is a 100-year trend. State laws and programs no longer govern our everyday lives. Maybe "nanny state" would be more descriptive than socialism.
True. That's why we adopted the Constitution to limit the extent of Federal power over the states and the citizens. The courts and the voters have failed to enforce those limits.
A lot of the things you list aren’t communist. Has any communist country ever had mandatory gun buybacks?
Price controls and government health care are also found in a lot of countries that aren’t communist.
Both Nixon and Trump engaged in price controls. Are they communist too?
I could add that Trump redistributed a lot of wealth to his supporters in the form of farm bailouts (among other crony capitalist programs). That sounds like communism too.
"Writing in the name of someone who isn’t running is a popular option. Jonah Goldberg seems to think that it sends a message to the parties that they are unhappy with the options. But that write-in vote may not be counted, depending on the state. If you write in 'Mitt Romney' or 'Mickey Mouse,' the powers-that-be in the parties may never know about it. That candidate certainly has no chance of winning."
In the state of Illinois, if you write in someone whose name does not appear on the list of valid write-in candidates, the vote for that office isn't counted and indistinguishable in the reported numbers from leaving it blank.
This post begs the question (and I mean that in the logical sense of “begging the question”) that the GOP is irredeemable and must be destroyed in its current condition before it can become something akin to conservative values. The majority of Republicans disagree with that argument. Therefore it’s truly a split in conservative circles. The split will lead to Trump losing but not necessarily down ballot races. Once Trump loses, I fully expect the “Conservatives for Kamala” group to pursue those who didn’t publicly oppose the nominee to drive them out of politics. The question is who will be a Jacobin and who will try to salvage what’s left?
I made the comment last night that I want nothing to do with these people. How are you ever going to stuff all these cats back in the same sack? The GOP made a calculation in 2016: they couldn't win NOW without the Trumpists. And they were mostly right. The white rural voters who stayed home in 2012 because they couldn't vote for a Mormon but showed up in droves for Trump made a big difference. I heard Michael Steele once describe how Trump went "fracking" for those voters. That's a gret description of it. And for one singular exception in 2016 this unwieldy coalition held (thanks in large part to the electoral college and an even larger part to Hillary Clinton's utter campaign mismanagement and disinterest from black voters in key states) and Trump won, despite the handful of concsientious objectors like us. But Republicans still don't realize that they got lucky - ONCE. They won't get lucky again. Democrats see Trump coming now. And every single time Trump speaks he drives another former Republican from the GOP. Right now, the Trumpists still outnumber us, so the "establishment" GOP keeps bowing to THEM and hoping they can pressure us to just "get on the train" and scaring us with all the comments about "Communism." But it's not going to work. I voted for Brian Kemp, but there is no way in hell I'm voting for Burt Jones. I never want to attend another state GOP convention with all the gross merchandise I saw at my last one. I'm not going to smile and clap when MTG gives a speech. So instead of the Trumpists not voting, now you have the middle conservatives not voting. Republicans didn't win new voters. They just swapped one group of non voters for a different one. So, what happens when the Trumpists die off or lose interest? Can we purge the party by fire and start over? Or will they continue to limp along election after election, winning only Southern states? Will the suburban women who I was always told are the "backbone of the Republican party" just drift over to the Democrats?
Pretty much told it like it is. Difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Pieces never fit the same.
Yes, Steve, the Republican Party needs to go the way of the Whigs. Ever since Trump entered the arena back in 2015, the Republican Party has become unrecognizable from the Reaganite version. I, for one, think it needs to be dissolved, and reconstituted as well as renamed.
I don’t know how the Republican Party could die and I don’t know how a new party could be born without using a lot of the people who are the problem in today’s GOP. In short, I think conservatives are screwed.
You are on fire David, kudos for the courage to step up and be counted. I wrote it the other day, i will say it again here; the 6 degrees of separation from the old Erick days has been amazing to watch. Call it evolution, call it growth, call it whatever you want, but from 2016 till now, its has been stunning to see and read how you guys have morphed into where so many in this country are.
Most people don't do it in such a public way. One of the challenges of exposing your soul openly and often is that it comes at a personal price. Most of us are private. Obviously social media has changed that, but buying in is never easy.
Clearly, The Racket News crew has elected not to bullshit their way to more reads or more likes. How any of you (David, Steve Jay or Merrie) vote is a very personal choice. The fact you open yourselves to the criticism of your readers, based on not just the who, but the why's is instructive for all of us reading along with you.
One of the reasons i struggle with EE is he used to believe "character matters." I get it, his livelihood is directly tied to his base. I know it sounds trite, but you guys write from the passion of your beliefs, not for the revenue (said with a smile).
Character matters. Principles matter. Norms matter. People matter. Unfortunately none of those matter to trump. He simply cares about himself, and himself alone.
Raphael Warnock's speech at the DNC last night is worth a listen: https://youtu.be/5Z-LxCzTwAo?si=0hxMsz5C4BN0Y-Bn
Well David, you and the writers finally did it and got me to sign up. I've been following many of you since the the EE days and find the writing and grownup non-tribal conversation here refreshing.
I live in a state that's ground zero right now and just can't for the life of me understand how someone can vote for and relate to someone who demonizes those who don't kiss the ring, yet claims to be about freedom. Who somehow has managed to pander to and then mock the evangical community in the open and yet wins them over in droves. Who demonizes the media for reporting the truths based upon lies unless they pander to him.
I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with regard to red states. Even the reddest of states have gone blue in the face of extremist views on the ballot, enough so that those issues are scaled back now in the party platform. ( See strict Abortion stances for one) If disent on a canadate isn't felt at the primary level, it should be felt at the general by vote of opposition, not abstaining or choosing an unserious canadate. This actually hits them where it hurts and cant be easily explained away. MAGA populism can do the same in the party if they lose enough. The party leaders will soften with the few powerful leaders who are tired of losing or trickle out until the dam breaks and they leave in droves.
Lets face it, they hitched their wagon to win and are in the business to do so. Their loyalty to win is greater than to any one person and they have quietly been paying attention to the losses the last few cycles. If the poll numbers get threatening close in red states, and others drop off they will bail too. Conservative policy and actual personal freedoms don't matter at this point. MAGA uses them for gaslighting purposes only to get votes.
Just my two cents. I used to think I had no dog in this fight since it's not my party, but I miss the old days when respect was mutual regardless and we didn't demonize each other for different thought. We all were better for it, win or lose, and all Americans.
-B
Very interesting to hear a conservative take to the “existential threat to democracy” view of Trump.
Also interesting to read the various conservative viewpoints of the various authors here, and compare/contrast with the likes of Goldberg, and French; as well as non-traditional types like Andrew Sullivan and Richard Hanania.
And on a separate note, extremely refreshing to hear your views on abortion. I’m pro-choice….and my conception of the religious conservative position of pro-life is to give infinite F’s until the first breath, then absolutely 0 F’s immediately thereafter. I can’t recall any conservative expressly disavow that routine as you have here. Kudos for that.
I Agree With You On This One, David. If I Lived In Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania Or Wisconsin, I Would, Probably, Be Voting For Kamala Harris And Then Voting For Non-Trump Cult Conservatives, Down The Ballot. However, I Live, Here, In Alabama And My Vote For Kamala Wouldn't Make A Dang Bit Of Difference. I'll,Probably ( Again ), Wind Up Voting For The Constitution Party Candidate For President, And Then Selectively Voting, Down The Ballot.
No criticism intended but I would like some more information on the constitutional guardrails you suspect Trump will tear down.
The courts would be an obvious possibility. They’ve blocked him in the past. He’ll be gunning for them.
We know he’s already tried to circumvent Congress and the Electoral College among other things.
With all due respect, sincerely, you're a good guy, but...
"...blocked him..."
"...gunning for them..." What does that mean? How?
"...tried to circumvent..."
And, yet, the guardrails held, right?
This is weak tea.
Why don't you just admit it. You hate Trump with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns. You can't stand the sight of the guy. You want to retch. It's ok; that alone is justification to vote for someone else. So going forward, spare us with the threat to democracy hyperbole.
That's a fair question, and I can't read Trump's mind, but he could throw the country into constitutional chaos just by refusing to abide by injunctions. "Mr Roberts has made his decisionnow let him enforce it."
Maybe that seems unlikely, but five years ago refusing to accept election results and inciting his supporters to attack Congress did as well.
Do I know exactly what Trump would do? No. But I am sure it would be bad.
How? All he could do is nominate judges to fill vacancies.
You might as well have titled your piece "conservatives for communism." That's what it amounts to if you are determined to vote for Kamala Harris. I am a #nevertrumper and a Christian Constitutional Conservative, and it is actually because of that that I won't be joining you in your particular brand of voting insanity. Of course, I will not vote for Donald Trump either. The way I look at it is I'm voting on God's side, and if that means my vote is cast as the ONLY vote for someone, so be it.
I don’t think people who say that understand what communism is. Every Democratic candidate going back at least to Bill Clinton has been labeled as a communist and/or socialist. It’s a Republican trope that has lost all meaning like progressives calling everything racist.
You are absolutely correct, David. Communist/socialist/marxist labeling is a trope and a worn out one at that.
More and more voters are being conditioned to believe that a strong central government is required to take care of their needs. This is a 100-year trend. State laws and programs no longer govern our everyday lives. Maybe "nanny state" would be more descriptive than socialism.
The centralization trend started with our nationhood.
True. That's why we adopted the Constitution to limit the extent of Federal power over the states and the citizens. The courts and the voters have failed to enforce those limits.
I think that’s true among Republicans as well.
I agree that nanny state and Big Government is more accurate.
Yeah, Republicans are also guilty.
Price controls-communism
Mandatory gun buybacks-communism
Government-run healthcare-communism
Murdering babies might not exactly come under the heading of communism, but it is even worse, if there is such a thing.
Need I go on, because I certainly could.
A lot of the things you list aren’t communist. Has any communist country ever had mandatory gun buybacks?
Price controls and government health care are also found in a lot of countries that aren’t communist.
Both Nixon and Trump engaged in price controls. Are they communist too?
I could add that Trump redistributed a lot of wealth to his supporters in the form of farm bailouts (among other crony capitalist programs). That sounds like communism too.
Please do, 'cause I'm sure it'll be hilarious
I guess if I need to go on, I'm not exactly dealing with conservatives, or even moderates. Then again, I should have known as much.
Just because you call yourself a Conservative does not mean you *are* conservative. The capitalization makes that a proper name, not an adjective.
I just want to see what you think is communist, 'cause I think your list will be hilarious.
In my case I am conservative, but you are right, just because one calls themselves a conservative, doesn't mean they are one.
God doesn't need your vote.