Still voting for Harris, even if all the bad stuff you write about happens for ONE simple reason - if a Republican candidate bests her in the polls in 2028, I can count on her vacating the office handing over the keys to the office peacefully and without any electoral schemes or shenanigans to overrule the will of the American voters.
And perhaps Harris winning might be the best thing that ever happened to the GOP for conservatives. Or perhaps it sends the red party over the cliff of racism, blood & soil, and authoritarian isolationism. Whatever keys are there in 2028, I can’t predict who will claim them.
I’ll race you to the bread line, Cameron. I’ll bring the government cheese. (I know how silly that sounds, and it’s just as silly to claim one term of one president will sink the republic, even if it’s one of the awfuls on the ballot this November).
Incrementalism, Steve. This all started under Wilson. The Democrat party has not stopped now for well over 100 years to implement THEIR version of governmental power, which very much resembles communism. Read the Communist Manifesto and tell me those 21 points haven't been part and parcel of the democrat(communist) agenda for the last 100+ years. And now, we are on the precipice of the end of America as we know it, EITHER WAY, because Republicans have been helping out a lot along the way, hence the reason I am no longer a Republican.
Understand that I do not have a political party. Will vote Harris if satisfied that NATO, Ukraine and Israel supported, and domestic policy promises appear moderate for a democrat.
For me personally, I don’t think Biden is mentally incompetent. I don’t think he could win after the debate, however, and I do think there are valid concerns about four more years.
As far as Kamala’s politics, Republicans are very good at blocking things and she’s more likely to take no for an answer than Trump.
Whether Biden is competent to be prez today and until Jan is one question. But that is not the question the election seeks to answer…which is whether he might be competent to be prez for the next 4 years. One can give a quivering halting “maybe” to Q1 while saying “heck no” to Q2.
In furtherance to that, I see no reason to doubt Dems’ faith in the constitution, since any invoking of the 25th requires Biden to have been prez at the time first. And their concern with his continued candidacy for the next 4 years is that he wasn’t going to be given that chance by voters. That is quite separate from not trusting the constitution.
No, my problem with the Dems goes back to before June 27. They knew Biden was a walking stiff….they fully believed Trump was an existential threat to democracy….yet they stuck with Biden as the guy to hold that line. That is and was an inherent unserious position to take. And they didn’t forsake that facade until it was no longer tenable. I find that far more egregious.
I agree…only a fraction of whatever vote share she gets will be “for her”, while a substantial portion with be “against trump”. And that’s the GOPs fault for being unable to field a candidate who doesn’t drive away votes all the way to the other side.
That's a lot of words just to say you don't care if Trump is actually successful in doing what he has said he will do. I just hope if I am ever in a position where I have to defend my opponents right to vote by voting against my own team I have more courage and honesty than you do.
Scott, everyone has a personal line and responsibility in their conscience. Let’s say I vote for Kamala, or a dead cat if the Democrats pivot to that, and Trump still wins Georgia, or the whole election. What then becomes my duty? Must I march in protest? Must I induce electors to abrogate their oath and cast electoral ballots for Harris? Must I participate in a general strike if Democrats call for one? Must I denounce Trump and say he is not my president? Where is the line?
Mine is that I will not vote for a candidate I find unacceptable. Not to stop any other candidate, because I had my chance to speak in that regard.
Firstly, the primary concern about Biden was his lack of energy to campaign effectively and win a second term. If that concern was not present, then he'd not have dropped out.
Secondly, this sounds like the same childish foot-stomping I've seen from younger progressives for years now: that our electoral system ends up with one of two people being elected POTUS, no matter how much one complains about it.
As a swing state voter, you are in a position where your decision actually matters. Does it suck that there isn't a candidate that fully reflects your values and is one of the two major parties? Sure: but then that's pretty much always the case, isn't it?
So, one must pick from the viable candidates: and related to you/many of the readers here, which of the two is acceptable at the most basic level? Which option is the most conservative pick, even if neither is very conservative at all?
Lastly, perhaps it is time to start supporting and pushing for reforms to our electoral system to counter the status quo that leads to a two-party system - such as ranked-choice voting and proportional representation.
Addendum: there's also a ton of fear-mongering that's not based on stated position, such as immigration: Harris states she'll sign the Lankford immigration bill, which will actually change asylum laws.
The Senate is still likely to be split, perhaps even in GOP control: a Harris win will not result in an open-borders policy as you state.
Frankly, if you're pissed off then be pissed off at the people that have forced you into this situation: the GOP. They fell to populism and regressive radicalism, and have nominated someone fundamentally unworthy of being POTUS multiple times.
Georgia has no Senate seat up this year. And I see no reason I must pick one of two terrible candidates. I’ll vote in local races. I do think Harris will be a hero to progressives, even if she accomplishes 25% of what I wrote is on her agenda.
Please. You know that GA is up for grabs for the presidential election: you're just trying to be Jimmy Clean-hands.
Our civic duty is to make a choice among the options available: again, go be angry at the GOP for nominating and supporting those that are antithetical to American tradition and conservatism. Damn them as you vote against them.
And you could not be more wrong about Progressives: they have proven themselves to be poor coalition members to the Democrats and didn't cheer Biden for anything. They will not cheer Harris, no matter what.
Disagree. I did my civic duty. Voted for Nikki Haley in the primary. She didn’t get the nomination. Nobody else has earned my vote in this race. My duty is done.
I don't usually agree but when one side is on record as willing to strip one side of the right to vote I do believe you have a civic duty to make sure that is stopped no matter what.
I really appreciate our Republican Lieutenant Governor, Geoff Duncan. If you haven't heard his interview last week on the Politically Georgia Podcast with Bill Nigut, Patricia Murphy, and Greg Bluestein, I highly recommend it. Duncan's interview begins somewhere around the 4 min mark and continues to the approximately 23 min mark.
When asked what makes him still a Republican, Duncan responded,
"Well I believe in conservative values um, I've carried a tremendous amount of weight on my shoulders understanding that conservative decisions and policies make a lot of sense, but I also don't get 100% of my way and this is the vision that I keep casting...'cause I get asked this question a lot from a lot of serious donors that were supporters of mine back in the day, business executives that are intrigued. They're not angry they're just intrigued and I explained this to them that what I'm doing is really more like a corporate restructuring project. Right? Our company has failed and we've got to lay some people off.
We've got to change some visions. We've got to invest in some different places if we're gonna eventually come back stronger. And that's where we're at as a Republican Party. We are BROKEN. We just don't want to admit it..."
Duncan went on to say, "The Republican Party is stuck in the proverbial purgatory, right now. We're stuck in no-mans land. We can't get out of our own way and until we get rid of Donald Trump and start to actually figure out, Okay, where do we want to go? What are the things we actually care about and who are the best messengers to carry that message to America? And, for me, that's the best way to do it is just beat Donald Trump, to eliminate him off of the, out of the Oval Office in a way that is painful in some policy areas, right?. It is humbling as a card-carrying, life-long Republican to walk into a room and to say that you are supporting a Democrat. But, that's where we're at. We've already lost this race. If Donald Trump is elected, we've lost as common sense conservatives that care about the future of our party and we've also lost if the Democrats win, but I just feel like there's an opportunity to heal and rebuild and even if that means losing on some of these policies for the next 4 years...."
When asked about the Trump rally in Georgia and why Trump with a simmering truce out of the blue chose to reopen these raw wounds attacking Gov. Kemp and his wifes, Duncan responded, "Let me just be blunt. He's an idiot, right? He's an idiot " then he goes on to say, "and I gave this example on one of the Sunday morning shows, I said, you know, the guy just walks down the street and looks for somebody to throw a sucker punch at because he wants everybody standing across the street to think he's big and strong. And the problem is no longer Donald Trump, It's the Republican Party that sits on the other side of the street and watches it happen. Every person in that room-. Every elected Republican should have been screaming at the top of their lungs that Donald Trump was wrong... Donald Trump is wrong for the Republican Party and his fight with Brian Kemp is futile. Brian Kemp has done a great job. Even Democrats around the state applaud some of the efforts he's taken... "
Geoff Duncan advice to Republicans. "Do the right thing. Listen to that tiny little voice in your head that tells you Donald Trump is the worst thing that has happened not only to this party but to this country.and this a temporary moment of insanity for the Republican Party and the only way to fix it is to get rid of him and the only way to do that is to vote for Kamala Harris, take our medicine for 4 years and heal and rebuild this party in a way that we can be proud of and ACTUALLY be conservative."
Duncan may be totally right, but he’s no longer Lt. Gov. He’s no longer anything. The GAGOP may expel him. Geoff’s positions are like committing Hare-Kari for any Republican officeholder. Some self identified conservatives want every Republican who may believe the party is broken to fall on their swords and die politically for principle. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Some influential people need to remain influential and in office to have a voice in the future. So Mike Pence is done but doing what he can. Geoff Duncan is a small voice in a hurricane.
Sorry to be blunt, but that's a load of BS. It's a cop-out. Those people are "falling on their swords" out of principle--and it is actually only political suicide as long as the rest of the influential people in the party continued to accept / make excuses for / bend-the-knee to Donald Trump. If everyone who "knew better," who admitted anonymously/behind the scenes what is so clear to all of us about Trumps manifest unfitness ... if all of those people stood up and said "enough is enough" and stop supporting or condoning this buffoon, we'd get past it sooner. As quoted above by @Salted Grits, if you just "take our medicine," the healing will come sooner.
As it stands, for my money -- anyone who continues to acquiesce at this point is "dead" politically. You say we need to keep some influential people in power ... I say that is extremely self-serving for those people (at the expense of all the rest of us).
What will it take? Them all losing their influence. I’m afraid that’s a long wait for principle. Yes, they’ll come out of their caves after Trump loses. They’ll turn into warriors raising awareness (and cash) to “stop the liberal Harris agenda.” And people will hold their noses at the stench of their hypocrisy.
This is our system. It’s built on hypocrisy and vulnerable to demagogues with large populist followings. It is also resilient enough to recover. But recovery is a long process and the damage is very deep.
To use a terrible analogy, Trump and MAGA have dug tunnels under every residence, hospital and school in the GOP infrastructure and to destroy Trumpism, the whole thing has to be leveled. And the residents of the GOP infrastructure will fight for their home regardless of who rules it because it’s their home. They’ll boot betrayers and collaborators. Either we wait things out or we go to war against it. Kinzinger, Cheney, and Duncan went to war. I admire them for it. Sununu, Kemp, and Haley hunkered down to wait. I have no reason to do either.
Thank you, glancecp. It is an unfortunate and distressing state of affairs when being principled is derided as foolishness. It falls in line with pastor reporting that congregants find Jesus teachings "weak." Almost like they are saying, "we don't like people who got crucified." Isn't what made people turn on Jesus his temerity to ride in on a donkey(service, humility, suffering, peace) instead of a horse(war, power, conquest)?
The other thing Geoff Duncan said in the Politically Georgia Podcast interview, " I can tell you the Republican Party will look a lot different at some point in the relatively near future than it does today because if it doesn't, it will be vaporized. It'll be a foregone conclusion and uh, you know, I think we'll have massive problems trying to even think about winning elections as Republicans..."
Laws mean nothing when the Executive Branch has the discretion to ignore them - and, in Biden's case, does exactly that. Impeachment does nothing except waste Congressional time, money and effort. Removal from office is not even a remote threat.
I take a simplistic view of most legal arguments, but I have read quite a bit about similar issues. I would be very surprised if you can cite an instance of the Supremes ordering the Executive Branch to prosecute a case that involves incarceration. Or that requires congress to impeach a federal official. They are more likely to rule the opposite and overturn or cease a prosecution.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the President to order an executive branch official to do something prohibited by Congress or SCOTUS and bundling a pardon with the order to avoid any of the usual consequences.
If the pardon power is unreviewable (and the President free to pardon anyone for any reason), there's nothing really standing in the way of their exercise of power.
The proportional voting you want is unconstitutional. States elect the President, and the more populous states get a bigger voice. Ranked choice voting is chaotic and easily manipulated by moneyed interests that can fund the most candidates.
Proportional representation would be for the state-level and House, not for the Senate or POTUS.
Ranked-choice voting allows for one to vote for a preferred candidate without wasting one's vote, and makes for more moderation in our politicians as those ranked choices roll-over. It works just fine once people are used to it.
Moneyed interests are already funding candidates they want, that won't change barring further changes to what political spending is allowed.
I thought House was already proportional except for counting illegals which gives sanctuary states a disproportionate number of representatives. Not sure what you are referring to at the state level. Years ago, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia's County Unit System which assured rural areas a majority in the state legislature.
Ranked-choice voting will continue to be a talking point for those who dislike the two-party system we now have. I think killing the two-party is a good idea, but I would rather encourage three or more parties and make it easier for their candidates to ballot qualify. I suppose enough money could manipulate the system the same way I can imagine ranked-choice voting being manipulated by special interests putting enough cleverly selected and tutored candidates on the ballot. I have trouble envisioning safeguards that do not infringe on free speech.
Proportional representation is where the number of seats won by a party is proportional to the percentage of votes said party received - typically done with a minimum percentage requirement. So for example, the Green Party gets 15% of the votes - the party would qualify for X seats. This is more voting for a party than a person, which would be a big change for American politics on its own. A side benefit is that it prevents shenanigans of running as a member of party X and then changing affiliation to party Y.
The system as currently configured results in a two-party system: it's an inevitability. The only way to encourage additional parties is to make changes to the system: whether that be via proportional representation and/or ranked-choice voting.
It's doubtful that any deeper changes to our system are really doable from the speech perspective, unless it's viewed as constitutional to require candidates only receive public funding - though getting them to stop having to ask for money for campaigns would be great too.
I fairly well expected this kind of commentary after spending time with Erick. You know, the guy that every time he endorses trump or doesn't, is wrong. But what the hell do i know eh?
Your vote is your right, the bullshit you threw out there about what Harris would do is utter and complete nonsense Steve. On the right, we have Project 2025 telling us straight away the plans for the future. On the left, we have you spouting crazy to justify not voting for Harris. There is nothing anywhere laying out the crap you are spewing. NOTHING!
But wrap yourself in the cocoon of "they're both awful" and write yourself in as president. Or write in Kemp or someone else you fancy. Hell, write in Erick Erickson. Just stop making shit up; it is beneath you as a guy who labels himself as a man living through his bible. There's nothing biblical about spewing crap sandwiches.
Finally, i mentioned it to David last week, how about a deep dive into the Georgia state election board changes? I guess it all makes sense as trump is telling us he doesn't need your vote. Pretty pathetic to watch this unfold and while at the same time you are telling us Harris is demanding your vote (is there a quote for that i missed?).
I have no duty to keep any candidate out of office. Only a duty to vote for whom I like. It is not my job or within my ken to prevent Trump from being elected. That was the Senate’s job and duty in January 2021. They failed to do their job. It was the GOP’s duty to present quality candidates. There were some but the primary voters chose the one who isn’t. I voted in the primary. I did my duty. I have no further duty regarding Donald Trump.
I never questioned your duty Steve. I know you know better than your answer suggests. I was questioning your comments on what a Harris win would do? The fact you pretended to not understand what i wrote is troubling. Only because you are way smarter than that.
I believe that if Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, they would pursue everything I wrote. Would they get all of it? No. But even 25% moves the government further left than it’s ever been. If Congress is split, or the GOP controls both houses, then obviously Harris would have to settle for a lot less.
From a site i read religiously every morning: "Republicans for Harris."
"Former Rep. Denver Riggleman, once a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, was an adviser to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6th insurrection. He described Trump as an “inveterate liar” and a “conspiracy theorist.” . . . “There’s no way as a Republican that I could vote for anybody who’s anti-Constitution,” Riggleman said.
More than 70,000 people participated in the call."
Clearly every voter should vote for whomever they think is working in their best interest (or against it). These conservative Republican's are willing to step and stop trump. Good on them.
Yeah a state Lt Governor with a book deal who met Trump all of one time had a whole lot to lose compared to a guy who spoke his mind in private to Trump almost daily, then publicly opposed him when it counted. I think your statement lacks any context.
All credit to Pence for standing up for the Constitution and throwing his political career in the trash over it; zero credit for not continuing to be clear about the danger that Trump poses and being vocally set against him.
@Steve Berman -- I'd love to hear your response to the points made by SGman and Steve Cheung that, in my view, pretty clearly dismantle your the premise of this post. I won't make the same argument as they did it with aplomb, IMO.
I do enjoy reading The Racket -- but I've always felt like you are the least open-minded when it comes to understanding your political opposite. It seems to me that you're quick to assume the worst of intentions of Democrats while absolving many (though not all) of the defects on the conservative side. In this way, David shows greater.... empathy, perhaps is the right word. You have some large blind spots in your thinking. Much of the strong reaction you've gotten to this post is due to disappointment. I think you're better than this.
Of course, maybe this post was just to throw a bomb out there to drive engagement! I don't believe that's the case (as that is just insufferable) ... would certainly be ironic for a post built out of accusing someone else of "bad faith." That said, bad faith feels like the an apt term for this post even if not intended as a troll. As SGman and Steve Cheung have provided pretty good explanations for why the Ds aren't, in fact, operating in bad faith. The answer was clear to many/most of us, but somehow in your blind spot.
Do you see the difference between a party organically failing and another taking it's place (like the Whigs and the Republicans) vs one party violently rounding up political opponents and rigging the system so that only they win? 'cause I've seen GOPers state they want to do the latter.
Be specific: provide where Democratic politicians state they want to outlaw the GOP, where they state they want to execute GOP politicians and voters - 'cause we have that in the opposite direction.
Still voting for Harris, even if all the bad stuff you write about happens for ONE simple reason - if a Republican candidate bests her in the polls in 2028, I can count on her vacating the office handing over the keys to the office peacefully and without any electoral schemes or shenanigans to overrule the will of the American voters.
It's that simple.
And perhaps Harris winning might be the best thing that ever happened to the GOP for conservatives. Or perhaps it sends the red party over the cliff of racism, blood & soil, and authoritarian isolationism. Whatever keys are there in 2028, I can’t predict who will claim them.
There will be no keys in 2028 if Harris/Walz win. They will cement the end of the republic and America will be relegated to the dustbin of history.
I’ll race you to the bread line, Cameron. I’ll bring the government cheese. (I know how silly that sounds, and it’s just as silly to claim one term of one president will sink the republic, even if it’s one of the awfuls on the ballot this November).
Incrementalism, Steve. This all started under Wilson. The Democrat party has not stopped now for well over 100 years to implement THEIR version of governmental power, which very much resembles communism. Read the Communist Manifesto and tell me those 21 points haven't been part and parcel of the democrat(communist) agenda for the last 100+ years. And now, we are on the precipice of the end of America as we know it, EITHER WAY, because Republicans have been helping out a lot along the way, hence the reason I am no longer a Republican.
There are 21 points in the Communist Manifesto? I know of 10, what are the other 11?
All you have to do is Google it...
Understand that I do not have a political party. Will vote Harris if satisfied that NATO, Ukraine and Israel supported, and domestic policy promises appear moderate for a democrat.
Let me know when your bingo card is full.
Plenty of time until November.
For me personally, I don’t think Biden is mentally incompetent. I don’t think he could win after the debate, however, and I do think there are valid concerns about four more years.
As far as Kamala’s politics, Republicans are very good at blocking things and she’s more likely to take no for an answer than Trump.
I disagree with some parts of this.
Whether Biden is competent to be prez today and until Jan is one question. But that is not the question the election seeks to answer…which is whether he might be competent to be prez for the next 4 years. One can give a quivering halting “maybe” to Q1 while saying “heck no” to Q2.
In furtherance to that, I see no reason to doubt Dems’ faith in the constitution, since any invoking of the 25th requires Biden to have been prez at the time first. And their concern with his continued candidacy for the next 4 years is that he wasn’t going to be given that chance by voters. That is quite separate from not trusting the constitution.
No, my problem with the Dems goes back to before June 27. They knew Biden was a walking stiff….they fully believed Trump was an existential threat to democracy….yet they stuck with Biden as the guy to hold that line. That is and was an inherent unserious position to take. And they didn’t forsake that facade until it was no longer tenable. I find that far more egregious.
I agree…only a fraction of whatever vote share she gets will be “for her”, while a substantial portion with be “against trump”. And that’s the GOPs fault for being unable to field a candidate who doesn’t drive away votes all the way to the other side.
That's a lot of words just to say you don't care if Trump is actually successful in doing what he has said he will do. I just hope if I am ever in a position where I have to defend my opponents right to vote by voting against my own team I have more courage and honesty than you do.
Scott, everyone has a personal line and responsibility in their conscience. Let’s say I vote for Kamala, or a dead cat if the Democrats pivot to that, and Trump still wins Georgia, or the whole election. What then becomes my duty? Must I march in protest? Must I induce electors to abrogate their oath and cast electoral ballots for Harris? Must I participate in a general strike if Democrats call for one? Must I denounce Trump and say he is not my president? Where is the line?
Mine is that I will not vote for a candidate I find unacceptable. Not to stop any other candidate, because I had my chance to speak in that regard.
Firstly, the primary concern about Biden was his lack of energy to campaign effectively and win a second term. If that concern was not present, then he'd not have dropped out.
Secondly, this sounds like the same childish foot-stomping I've seen from younger progressives for years now: that our electoral system ends up with one of two people being elected POTUS, no matter how much one complains about it.
As a swing state voter, you are in a position where your decision actually matters. Does it suck that there isn't a candidate that fully reflects your values and is one of the two major parties? Sure: but then that's pretty much always the case, isn't it?
So, one must pick from the viable candidates: and related to you/many of the readers here, which of the two is acceptable at the most basic level? Which option is the most conservative pick, even if neither is very conservative at all?
Lastly, perhaps it is time to start supporting and pushing for reforms to our electoral system to counter the status quo that leads to a two-party system - such as ranked-choice voting and proportional representation.
Addendum: there's also a ton of fear-mongering that's not based on stated position, such as immigration: Harris states she'll sign the Lankford immigration bill, which will actually change asylum laws.
The Senate is still likely to be split, perhaps even in GOP control: a Harris win will not result in an open-borders policy as you state.
Frankly, if you're pissed off then be pissed off at the people that have forced you into this situation: the GOP. They fell to populism and regressive radicalism, and have nominated someone fundamentally unworthy of being POTUS multiple times.
Georgia has no Senate seat up this year. And I see no reason I must pick one of two terrible candidates. I’ll vote in local races. I do think Harris will be a hero to progressives, even if she accomplishes 25% of what I wrote is on her agenda.
Please. You know that GA is up for grabs for the presidential election: you're just trying to be Jimmy Clean-hands.
Our civic duty is to make a choice among the options available: again, go be angry at the GOP for nominating and supporting those that are antithetical to American tradition and conservatism. Damn them as you vote against them.
And you could not be more wrong about Progressives: they have proven themselves to be poor coalition members to the Democrats and didn't cheer Biden for anything. They will not cheer Harris, no matter what.
Disagree. I did my civic duty. Voted for Nikki Haley in the primary. She didn’t get the nomination. Nobody else has earned my vote in this race. My duty is done.
You're using the same language as those progressives re: earning your vote.
Our civic duty is at the general election, not the primaries. The primaries are for private organizations, after all.
I don't usually agree but when one side is on record as willing to strip one side of the right to vote I do believe you have a civic duty to make sure that is stopped no matter what.
I really appreciate our Republican Lieutenant Governor, Geoff Duncan. If you haven't heard his interview last week on the Politically Georgia Podcast with Bill Nigut, Patricia Murphy, and Greg Bluestein, I highly recommend it. Duncan's interview begins somewhere around the 4 min mark and continues to the approximately 23 min mark.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/will-tim-walz-help-kamala-harris-win-georgia/id1356662668?i=1000664501580
When asked what makes him still a Republican, Duncan responded,
"Well I believe in conservative values um, I've carried a tremendous amount of weight on my shoulders understanding that conservative decisions and policies make a lot of sense, but I also don't get 100% of my way and this is the vision that I keep casting...'cause I get asked this question a lot from a lot of serious donors that were supporters of mine back in the day, business executives that are intrigued. They're not angry they're just intrigued and I explained this to them that what I'm doing is really more like a corporate restructuring project. Right? Our company has failed and we've got to lay some people off.
We've got to change some visions. We've got to invest in some different places if we're gonna eventually come back stronger. And that's where we're at as a Republican Party. We are BROKEN. We just don't want to admit it..."
Duncan went on to say, "The Republican Party is stuck in the proverbial purgatory, right now. We're stuck in no-mans land. We can't get out of our own way and until we get rid of Donald Trump and start to actually figure out, Okay, where do we want to go? What are the things we actually care about and who are the best messengers to carry that message to America? And, for me, that's the best way to do it is just beat Donald Trump, to eliminate him off of the, out of the Oval Office in a way that is painful in some policy areas, right?. It is humbling as a card-carrying, life-long Republican to walk into a room and to say that you are supporting a Democrat. But, that's where we're at. We've already lost this race. If Donald Trump is elected, we've lost as common sense conservatives that care about the future of our party and we've also lost if the Democrats win, but I just feel like there's an opportunity to heal and rebuild and even if that means losing on some of these policies for the next 4 years...."
When asked about the Trump rally in Georgia and why Trump with a simmering truce out of the blue chose to reopen these raw wounds attacking Gov. Kemp and his wifes, Duncan responded, "Let me just be blunt. He's an idiot, right? He's an idiot " then he goes on to say, "and I gave this example on one of the Sunday morning shows, I said, you know, the guy just walks down the street and looks for somebody to throw a sucker punch at because he wants everybody standing across the street to think he's big and strong. And the problem is no longer Donald Trump, It's the Republican Party that sits on the other side of the street and watches it happen. Every person in that room-. Every elected Republican should have been screaming at the top of their lungs that Donald Trump was wrong... Donald Trump is wrong for the Republican Party and his fight with Brian Kemp is futile. Brian Kemp has done a great job. Even Democrats around the state applaud some of the efforts he's taken... "
Geoff Duncan advice to Republicans. "Do the right thing. Listen to that tiny little voice in your head that tells you Donald Trump is the worst thing that has happened not only to this party but to this country.and this a temporary moment of insanity for the Republican Party and the only way to fix it is to get rid of him and the only way to do that is to vote for Kamala Harris, take our medicine for 4 years and heal and rebuild this party in a way that we can be proud of and ACTUALLY be conservative."
Duncan may be totally right, but he’s no longer Lt. Gov. He’s no longer anything. The GAGOP may expel him. Geoff’s positions are like committing Hare-Kari for any Republican officeholder. Some self identified conservatives want every Republican who may believe the party is broken to fall on their swords and die politically for principle. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. Some influential people need to remain influential and in office to have a voice in the future. So Mike Pence is done but doing what he can. Geoff Duncan is a small voice in a hurricane.
Sorry to be blunt, but that's a load of BS. It's a cop-out. Those people are "falling on their swords" out of principle--and it is actually only political suicide as long as the rest of the influential people in the party continued to accept / make excuses for / bend-the-knee to Donald Trump. If everyone who "knew better," who admitted anonymously/behind the scenes what is so clear to all of us about Trumps manifest unfitness ... if all of those people stood up and said "enough is enough" and stop supporting or condoning this buffoon, we'd get past it sooner. As quoted above by @Salted Grits, if you just "take our medicine," the healing will come sooner.
As it stands, for my money -- anyone who continues to acquiesce at this point is "dead" politically. You say we need to keep some influential people in power ... I say that is extremely self-serving for those people (at the expense of all the rest of us).
What will it take? Them all losing their influence. I’m afraid that’s a long wait for principle. Yes, they’ll come out of their caves after Trump loses. They’ll turn into warriors raising awareness (and cash) to “stop the liberal Harris agenda.” And people will hold their noses at the stench of their hypocrisy.
This is our system. It’s built on hypocrisy and vulnerable to demagogues with large populist followings. It is also resilient enough to recover. But recovery is a long process and the damage is very deep.
To use a terrible analogy, Trump and MAGA have dug tunnels under every residence, hospital and school in the GOP infrastructure and to destroy Trumpism, the whole thing has to be leveled. And the residents of the GOP infrastructure will fight for their home regardless of who rules it because it’s their home. They’ll boot betrayers and collaborators. Either we wait things out or we go to war against it. Kinzinger, Cheney, and Duncan went to war. I admire them for it. Sununu, Kemp, and Haley hunkered down to wait. I have no reason to do either.
Thank you, glancecp. It is an unfortunate and distressing state of affairs when being principled is derided as foolishness. It falls in line with pastor reporting that congregants find Jesus teachings "weak." Almost like they are saying, "we don't like people who got crucified." Isn't what made people turn on Jesus his temerity to ride in on a donkey(service, humility, suffering, peace) instead of a horse(war, power, conquest)?
The other thing Geoff Duncan said in the Politically Georgia Podcast interview, " I can tell you the Republican Party will look a lot different at some point in the relatively near future than it does today because if it doesn't, it will be vaporized. It'll be a foregone conclusion and uh, you know, I think we'll have massive problems trying to even think about winning elections as Republicans..."
Laws mean nothing when the Executive Branch has the discretion to ignore them - and, in Biden's case, does exactly that. Impeachment does nothing except waste Congressional time, money and effort. Removal from office is not even a remote threat.
It's VERY unfortunate that the Supreme Court defanged both Congress and themselves in being able to keep the President accountable.
I take a simplistic view of most legal arguments, but I have read quite a bit about similar issues. I would be very surprised if you can cite an instance of the Supremes ordering the Executive Branch to prosecute a case that involves incarceration. Or that requires congress to impeach a federal official. They are more likely to rule the opposite and overturn or cease a prosecution.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the President to order an executive branch official to do something prohibited by Congress or SCOTUS and bundling a pardon with the order to avoid any of the usual consequences.
If the pardon power is unreviewable (and the President free to pardon anyone for any reason), there's nothing really standing in the way of their exercise of power.
Congress can remove any President from office. That, also, is non-reviewable.
The proportional voting you want is unconstitutional. States elect the President, and the more populous states get a bigger voice. Ranked choice voting is chaotic and easily manipulated by moneyed interests that can fund the most candidates.
Proportional representation would be for the state-level and House, not for the Senate or POTUS.
Ranked-choice voting allows for one to vote for a preferred candidate without wasting one's vote, and makes for more moderation in our politicians as those ranked choices roll-over. It works just fine once people are used to it.
Moneyed interests are already funding candidates they want, that won't change barring further changes to what political spending is allowed.
I thought House was already proportional except for counting illegals which gives sanctuary states a disproportionate number of representatives. Not sure what you are referring to at the state level. Years ago, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia's County Unit System which assured rural areas a majority in the state legislature.
Ranked-choice voting will continue to be a talking point for those who dislike the two-party system we now have. I think killing the two-party is a good idea, but I would rather encourage three or more parties and make it easier for their candidates to ballot qualify. I suppose enough money could manipulate the system the same way I can imagine ranked-choice voting being manipulated by special interests putting enough cleverly selected and tutored candidates on the ballot. I have trouble envisioning safeguards that do not infringe on free speech.
Proportional representation is where the number of seats won by a party is proportional to the percentage of votes said party received - typically done with a minimum percentage requirement. So for example, the Green Party gets 15% of the votes - the party would qualify for X seats. This is more voting for a party than a person, which would be a big change for American politics on its own. A side benefit is that it prevents shenanigans of running as a member of party X and then changing affiliation to party Y.
The system as currently configured results in a two-party system: it's an inevitability. The only way to encourage additional parties is to make changes to the system: whether that be via proportional representation and/or ranked-choice voting.
It's doubtful that any deeper changes to our system are really doable from the speech perspective, unless it's viewed as constitutional to require candidates only receive public funding - though getting them to stop having to ask for money for campaigns would be great too.
Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a hybrid version of a parliamentary system. Not knocking it - just an observation.
Somewhat, yes.
If we're talking reform of just about anything, it's a good idea to take the best of what works in general and adapt it to our benefit.
I fairly well expected this kind of commentary after spending time with Erick. You know, the guy that every time he endorses trump or doesn't, is wrong. But what the hell do i know eh?
Your vote is your right, the bullshit you threw out there about what Harris would do is utter and complete nonsense Steve. On the right, we have Project 2025 telling us straight away the plans for the future. On the left, we have you spouting crazy to justify not voting for Harris. There is nothing anywhere laying out the crap you are spewing. NOTHING!
But wrap yourself in the cocoon of "they're both awful" and write yourself in as president. Or write in Kemp or someone else you fancy. Hell, write in Erick Erickson. Just stop making shit up; it is beneath you as a guy who labels himself as a man living through his bible. There's nothing biblical about spewing crap sandwiches.
Finally, i mentioned it to David last week, how about a deep dive into the Georgia state election board changes? I guess it all makes sense as trump is telling us he doesn't need your vote. Pretty pathetic to watch this unfold and while at the same time you are telling us Harris is demanding your vote (is there a quote for that i missed?).
I have no duty to keep any candidate out of office. Only a duty to vote for whom I like. It is not my job or within my ken to prevent Trump from being elected. That was the Senate’s job and duty in January 2021. They failed to do their job. It was the GOP’s duty to present quality candidates. There were some but the primary voters chose the one who isn’t. I voted in the primary. I did my duty. I have no further duty regarding Donald Trump.
I never questioned your duty Steve. I know you know better than your answer suggests. I was questioning your comments on what a Harris win would do? The fact you pretended to not understand what i wrote is troubling. Only because you are way smarter than that.
I believe that if Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, they would pursue everything I wrote. Would they get all of it? No. But even 25% moves the government further left than it’s ever been. If Congress is split, or the GOP controls both houses, then obviously Harris would have to settle for a lot less.
From a site i read religiously every morning: "Republicans for Harris."
"Former Rep. Denver Riggleman, once a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, was an adviser to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6th insurrection. He described Trump as an “inveterate liar” and a “conspiracy theorist.” . . . “There’s no way as a Republican that I could vote for anybody who’s anti-Constitution,” Riggleman said.
More than 70,000 people participated in the call."
Clearly every voter should vote for whomever they think is working in their best interest (or against it). These conservative Republican's are willing to step and stop trump. Good on them.
Be more Geoff Duncan, less Mike Pence.
Pence > Duncan
Nah: Pence lacks the backbone to actually go against Trump directly.
Yeah a state Lt Governor with a book deal who met Trump all of one time had a whole lot to lose compared to a guy who spoke his mind in private to Trump almost daily, then publicly opposed him when it counted. I think your statement lacks any context.
All credit to Pence for standing up for the Constitution and throwing his political career in the trash over it; zero credit for not continuing to be clear about the danger that Trump poses and being vocally set against him.
Aug 14th
re: Harris polls ahead of Trump
Dear Steve,
What planet are you living on?
Click the link. It’s not me it’s RealClearPolling. The RCP average is always the safe number to cite.
There is no reason to get cocky; but it is interesting...
https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1823371599153594823
It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.
@Steve Berman -- I'd love to hear your response to the points made by SGman and Steve Cheung that, in my view, pretty clearly dismantle your the premise of this post. I won't make the same argument as they did it with aplomb, IMO.
I do enjoy reading The Racket -- but I've always felt like you are the least open-minded when it comes to understanding your political opposite. It seems to me that you're quick to assume the worst of intentions of Democrats while absolving many (though not all) of the defects on the conservative side. In this way, David shows greater.... empathy, perhaps is the right word. You have some large blind spots in your thinking. Much of the strong reaction you've gotten to this post is due to disappointment. I think you're better than this.
Of course, maybe this post was just to throw a bomb out there to drive engagement! I don't believe that's the case (as that is just insufferable) ... would certainly be ironic for a post built out of accusing someone else of "bad faith." That said, bad faith feels like the an apt term for this post even if not intended as a troll. As SGman and Steve Cheung have provided pretty good explanations for why the Ds aren't, in fact, operating in bad faith. The answer was clear to many/most of us, but somehow in your blind spot.
Good day...
Oofta...
If Harris is elected and all of the bad things you listed (plus others not listed) take place, how does that NOT result in a one-party nation?
Lovely fear-mongering.
Do you see the difference between a party organically failing and another taking it's place (like the Whigs and the Republicans) vs one party violently rounding up political opponents and rigging the system so that only they win? 'cause I've seen GOPers state they want to do the latter.
And I've seen democrats(communists) do the same.
Be specific: provide where Democratic politicians state they want to outlaw the GOP, where they state they want to execute GOP politicians and voters - 'cause we have that in the opposite direction.
roger that
I believe the Harris scenario is more likely to happen and less likely to be tempered by Constitutional law and much scarier than the Trump scenario.
Hear, hear, Steve! And bravo! I couldn't agree more with this piece! Love it!