2022 Midterm Election thread

[Bostondevil]

There are two issues at play:

1) The ability to win competitive races
2) The ability to in primaries

#1 will take care of itself as we saw this cycle.

#2 is more complicated but it's going to take some Republicans to check their ego and get out of the way. Bo Hines in my district won the primary with just over 30% of the vote. This means almost 70% of Republicans didn't want him. This is a big rejections of Trump, but the problem is that it was enough to win the primary because three or four other "normal" Republicans split the vote. Apparently in NC, a 30% plurality winner is the theshold for a runoff. Hines cleared that hurdle by percent or two. I feel confident if it had been a two candidate race, Hines would have lost. But he didn't, so here we are with a D representing what should have been an R district because just like 2016, everyone thought they could win and Trump just kept winning states in the primary with 35-40% until it was too late.

No district should be represented by either party.

[Bostondevil]

There are plenty of moderate Republicans still in office and that get elected. There are also an increased number of MAGA-style candidates. This discussion makes it sound like NO Republican successfully running for office is not extreme and that’s just not the case.

At lower levels, sure, and incumbents. Name one Republican Senator or Governor elected to their first term that you would consider moderate.

[dudog84]

Ok - but he knew all the details of his own past. (Maybe?) He was clearly used, but wasn’t he a willing participant? And like you say, it’s hard to feel sorry for someone who did all those gross things in the first place.

Dirty business is a good summation tho. Just gross all around.

Yep, I'm conflicted. But I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.

...The large scale irrationality is the stuff that keeps me up at night.

Has there really been an influx of MAGA-style judges yet ? In the 2020 election cases, the conservative/FedSoc judges (a bunch appointed by Trump himself) pretty unanimously held the line against all Trump team approaches.

Not that it's guaranteed to last - time will have to tell on that one...

What keeps me up at night is Trump getting re-elected and appointing Cannon to the Supreme Court.

[dudog84]

We all love polls, right? Right??? Here's my nominee for the last one of the thread before Jason shuts it down, and most of y'all are not gonna be happy.

A declining share of Americans believe it is “very important” to reduce divisiveness or to find better ways to understand people whose political affiliations are different from their own, a new poll from Public Agenda/USA TODAY has found. It's a striking difference from previous research and a nod to the politically polarized country America has become.

A similar Hidden Common Ground poll in 2019 found that 65% of Americans said it was very important to reduce divisiveness. Now, fewer than half (48%) hold that opinion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t/10796563002/

God help The United (?) States of America.

[snowdenscold]

At lower levels, sure, and incumbents. Name one Republican Senator or Governor elected to their first term that you would consider moderate.

From what I can tell, there were only 3 Republicans elected to governorships who were not already incumbents, so pretty small sample size:

Lombardo (Nevada)
Pillen (Nebrasksa)
Huckabee-Sanders (Arkansas)
and Youngkin (Virginia) if you want to go back 1 more year.

But what's the definition of moderate anyway these days? Merely not claiming the 2020 election was stolen? I guess things get pretty relative pretty quick, haha.
Because on just that basis, I guess all four of them are "moderate" but I imagine your definition extends further than that.

[PackMan97]

We all love polls, right? Right??? Here's my nominee for the last one of the thread before Jason shuts it down, and most of y'all are not gonna be happy.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t/10796563002/

God help The United (?) States of America.

I think this quote is missing from the article.

If they aren't going to try and play by my rules, I'm taking my ball and going home.

[Bostondevil]

From what I can tell, there were only 3 Republicans elected to governorships who were not already incumbents, so pretty small sample size:

Lombardo (Nevada)
Pillen (Nebrasksa)
Huckabee-Sanders (Arkansas)
and Youngkin (Virginia) if you want to go back 1 more year.

But what's the definition of moderate anyway these days? Merely not claiming the 2020 election was stolen? I guess things get pretty relative pretty quick, haha.
Because on just that basis, I guess all four of them are "moderate" but I imagine your definition extends further than that.

You tell me. I've asked that question in different ways many times in this thread. Nobody has answered it yet.

I would label outgoing Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker a moderate but I will concede that living in Massachusetts, my definition of moderate may not be accepted by all. I'd say the line is somewhere between Charlie Baker and hmm, Herschel Walker for sure but that's a bit extreme, so I'll go with Ron DeSantis since he is getting a lot of attention now. Where is the line? And who falls on the moderate side of it?

I hope we can all agree that being an election denier does disqualify a candidate from moderate status.

Also, you have basically proven my point. There may indeed be lots of moderates still holding public office on the Republican side, but could any of them mount a successful campaign for their first term now? Where are the new moderate Republicans? Do they exist? And can they get elected? I keep asking for examples of the quality candidates many are bemoaning would have done better in this election cycle. Who are they? Name names. Until somebody does, you will have to accept my opinion that they don't exist as neither unusual nor partisan.

[dudog84]

One definition cannot cover all, but I think most moderates are fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Pay your bills, leave consenting adults alone. If that's PPB, please strike.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Yep, I'm conflicted. But I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.

Interesting. I'm the tyranny of evil men.

[ClemmonsDevil]

We all love polls, right? Right??? Here's my nominee for the last one of the thread before Jason shuts it down, and most of y'all are not gonna be happy.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t/10796563002/

God help The United (?) States of America.

You can see this from where I'm standing. And I was a 60/40 70/30 voter in 2014.

[Bostondevil]

Great post. As to the sentence I bolded, the question is: are there enough of them? Are there really enough moderate Republicans out there who, by changing the type of candidate they're willing to vote for, can produce more moderate Republican nominees? I'm not sure there are. I mean, if you're not willing or able to stand up and try your best to nominate non-MAGA Republicans, aren't you in a way MAGA yourself, or at least complicit in what it stands for?

I'd say yes. In fact, I have. Many times.

[Tooold]

We all love polls, right? Right??? Here's my nominee for the last one of the thread before Jason shuts it down, and most of y'all are not gonna be happy.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t/10796563002/

God help The United (?) States of America.

This is a huge problem. Both sides are contributing to it. It will not get better until leaders from both sides make clear efforts to understand the other side. And it needs to happen at the grassroots level as well.

[OldPhiKap]

Interesting. I'm the tyranny of evil men.

Have you seen my wallet?

[mph]

You tell me. I've asked that question in different ways many times in this thread. Nobody has answered it yet.

I would label outgoing Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker a moderate but I will concede that living in Massachusetts, my definition of moderate may not be accepted by all. I'd say the line is somewhere between Charlie Baker and hmm, Herschel Walker for sure but that's a bit extreme, so I'll go with Ron DeSantis since he is getting a lot of attention now. Where is the line? And who falls on the moderate side of it?

I hope we can all agree that being an election denier does disqualify a candidate from moderate status.

Also, you have basically proven my point. There may indeed be lots of moderates still holding public office on the Republican side, but could any of them mount a successful campaign for their first term now? Where are the new moderate Republicans? Do they exist? And can they get elected? I keep asking for examples of the quality candidates many are bemoaning would have done better in this election cycle. Who are they? Name names. Until somebody does, you will have to accept my opinion that they don't exist as neither unusual nor partisan.

IMO, there is no fixed definition of “moderate.” By definition it’s a relative term that only has meaning in relation to the extremes. As the extremes change, so does the definition of moderation. I think the context for “moderate” has changed a lot more in regards to social than economic issues.

We probably agree that todays “moderate” Republican is 1990’s conservative Republican. I suspect you don’t agree with my belief that today’s moderate Democrat on social issues is 1990’s social progressive, but maybe you do. In either case, I don’t know how to define “moderate” in our specific political context without discussing specific issues of public policy which is obviously out of bounds.

As a parting comment before the thread is closed, I want to say that I appreciate the back and forth with you and several others in this thread. It’s good to be challenged and have some blind spots revealed. The midterm election was also the latest reminder that I need to hold my opinions about what the electorate is thinking with a good deal more humility.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Have you seen my wallet?

Wait. Is it the ont that says...

[tommy]

[QUOTE=Tooold;1543210]I would love to read a scientific (or psychological) examination of the factors that led to Trump getting the nomination to begin with. I think there was a “perfect storm” of anger/disenfranchisement among certain elements of the Republican Party compounded with the shortcomings of the primary system itself (with a large group of candidates, “acceptable” candidates can split votes and get eliminated before the majority has a chance to weigh in). Add to that a group of angry people (extremists) who I would not have considered to be republicans who were drawn to Trump’s message of anger and reinforced it./QUOTE]

I don't think all these folks just got angry once Donald Trump decided to run for President in 2016. That anger, or other emotions such as fear and resentment, were already there. Seems like the basic fear driving that sector of the electorate is fear of being, as they say, "replaced." Fear of losing ground to members of other groups, whether it be economically or culturally or both, as the world continues to spin forward. It's why the Republican Party -- which has been way, way better at messaging and motivating its voters throughout my adult life -- first used the term "elites" as a target for its base. That term speaks to the resentment of the Republican base against the perceived driving of our culture and our economy in directions they don't like, and to that driving being done by the "other." Of course the irony is that the true "elites" as that term has traditionally been interpreted, have been the Wall Street guys, the country club guys, the corporate board room guys, who have always skewed heavily Republican. Yet somehow, the Republican messaging successfully pinned the "elites" label on places like university campuses and Silicon Valley rather than on the board room guys with the big second home in the Hamptons.

In any event, that fear of being replaced, or marginalized cannot, in my opinion, be separated from issues of race and ethnicity. Which is why MAGA is an almost entirely white phenomenon. It is also why I feel like the Presidency of Barack Obama contained the seeds of Trumpism and MAGA. The apex of influence (or, in their view, domination) by the "other" was personified by the first black President, especially one as urbane and intellectual as Obama, and his being "other" extended in the view of many MAGA folks to his being Muslim, not an American citizen, etc., a narrative which of course was pushed hard by Trump himself.

The psychology is in some ways very simple and obvious, and in others not simple at all.

Edit: sorry about not doing the quote right at the top. Meant to but not sure how to fix it. And I want to add my thanks to Jason for doing a lot of heavy lifting, spending a lot of difficult hours, and finding the best balance possible in moderating this difficult, but in my opinion really important thread. Thank you and job well done.

[dudog84]

[QUOTE=tommy;1543427]

I would love to read a scientific (or psychological) examination of the factors that led to Trump getting the nomination to begin with. I think there was a “perfect storm” of anger/disenfranchisement among certain elements of the Republican Party compounded with the shortcomings of the primary system itself (with a large group of candidates, “acceptable” candidates can split votes and get eliminated before the majority has a chance to weigh in). Add to that a group of angry people (extremists) who I would not have considered to be republicans who were drawn to Trump’s message of anger and reinforced it./QUOTE]

I don't think all these folks just got angry once Donald Trump decided to run for President in 2016. That anger, or other emotions such as fear and resentment, were already there. Seems like the basic fear driving that sector of the electorate is fear of being, as they say, "replaced." Fear of losing ground to members of other groups, whether it be economically or culturally or both, as the world continues to spin forward. It's why the Republican Party -- which has been way, way better at messaging and motivating its voters throughout my adult life -- first used the term "elites" as a target for its base. That term speaks to the resentment of the Republican base against the perceived driving of our culture and our economy in directions they don't like, and to that driving being done by the "other." Of course the irony is that the true "elites" as that term has traditionally been interpreted, have been the Wall Street guys, the country club guys, the corporate board room guys, who have always skewed heavily Republican. Yet somehow, the Republican messaging successfully pinned the "elites" label on places like university campuses and Silicon Valley rather than on the board room guys with the big second home in the Hamptons.

In any event, that fear of being replaced, or marginalized cannot, in my opinion, be separated from issues of race and ethnicity. Which is why MAGA is an almost entirely white phenomenon. It is also why I feel like the Presidency of Barack Obama contained the seeds of Trumpism and MAGA. The apex of influence (or, in their view, domination) by the "other" was personified by the first black President, especially one as urbane and intellectual as Obama, and his being "other" extended in the view of many MAGA folks to his being Muslim, not an American citizen, etc., a narrative which of course was pushed hard by Trump himself.

The psychology is in some ways very simple and obvious, and in others not simple at all.

Edit: sorry about not doing the quote right at the top. Meant to but not sure how to fix it. And I want to add my thanks to Jason for doing a lot of heavy lifting, spending a lot of difficult hours, and finding the best balance possible in moderating this difficult, but in my opinion really important thread. Thank you and job well done.

This describes my next-door neighbor. We'd gotten along fine for decades, recently not so much. I want to say "You're being kept in a perpetual state of fear and anger. That's a crappy way to go through life." But I don't want to get shot. Seriously. He has a lot of guns.

The thing is, his daddy left him a lot of money. He's set for life (and probably his children). He's done almost nothing to better himself, to earn it. It's crazy.

[Bluedog]

One definition cannot cover all, but I think most moderates are fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Pay your bills, leave consenting adults alone. If that's PPB, please strike.

This site gives a rating based on what bills they sponsor. The following senators are in 0.3<x<0.7 where 0 is most politically left and 1.0 is most politically right. Interestingly, there are 8 Republicans and 17 Democrats/Independents that Caucus with Dems in the list. Of course, nobody here would call Lindsey Graham a moderate...so it's not an exact science clearly but at least it's data-driven. If we look at 0.4<x<0.6 then we're left with the bolded below, 1 Republican and 7 Dems/Independents, with Warner just missing the cut. This is more a reflection of being moderate in the CURRENT congress and doesn't take historical policy into account. So, by this measure, seems like there are more "moderate Dems" than Republicans in the Senate but both exist to some extent. Interesting that Sinema and Jones are well within the "right leaning" section whereas no Republicans fall in the "left leaning" section (no bolds).

#45 0.69 Sen. Graham [R-SC]
#46 0.68 Sen. Alexander [R-TN]
#47 0.68 Sen. Sinema [D-AZ]
#48 0.66 Sen. Portman [R-OH]
#49 0.66 Sen. Paul [R-KY]
#50 0.65 Sen. Burr [R-NC]
#51 0.63 Sen. Jones [D-AL]
#52 0.61 Sen. Shelby [R-AL]
#53 0.61 Sen. Collins [R-ME]
#54 0.57 Sen. Manchin [D-WV]
#55 0.57 Sen. Murkowski [R-AK]
#56 0.49 Sen. Tester [D-MT]
#57 0.49 Sen. Kelly [D-AZ]
#58 0.49 Sen. King [I-ME]
#59 0.46 Sen. Peters [D-MI]
#60 0.46 Sen. Hassan [D-NH]
#61 0.42 Sen. Coons [D-DE]
#62 0.40 Sen. Warner [D-VA]
#63 0.36 Sen. Shaheen [D-NH]
#64 0.35 Sen. Carper [D-DE]
#65 0.34 Sen. Cantwell [D-WA]
#66 0.34 Sen. Rosen [D-NV]
#67 0.32 Sen. Bennet [D-CO]
#68 0.31 Sen. Menendez [D-NJ]
#69 0.31 Sen. Casey [D-PA]

[Bostondevil]

IMO, there is no fixed definition of “moderate.” By definition it’s a relative term that only has meaning in relation to the extremes. As the extremes change, so does the definition of moderation. I think the context for “moderate” has changed a lot more in regards to social than economic issues.

We probably agree that todays “moderate” Republican is 1990’s conservative Republican. I suspect you don’t agree with my belief that today’s moderate Democrat on social issues is 1990’s social progressive, but maybe you do. In either case, I don’t know how to define “moderate” in our specific political context without discussing specific issues of public policy which is obviously out of bounds.

As a parting comment before the thread is closed, I want to say that I appreciate the back and forth with you and several others in this thread. It’s good to be challenged and have some blind spots revealed. The midterm election was also the latest reminder that I need to hold my opinions about what the electorate is thinking with a good deal more humility.

I think, politically, moderate is a term that no longer has any meaning whatsoever. I think anyone who calls themselves a moderate - both Democrats and Republicans - is mostly hoping that they don't come across as too racist in the policies they support.

That's my definition. I don't expect anybody else to agree with me.

And you're welcome. I often feel like a party of one around here. I am aware that my opinions are merely opinions, but given that I have opinions that are not mainstream - for this thread - it does many of you some good to hear them. When we are surrounded by people who think the same way we do, we start to think of our opinions as facts. It takes effort not to fall into that habit.

[PackMan97]

...and with that, I'll see y'all when the 2024 Presidential Thread opens.