DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
What's hard to understand is how that didn't happen with Trump.
DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
What's hard to understand is how that didn't happen with Trump.
Different personalities react differently with public opinion, even when they're saying and doing more-or-less the same thing.
DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
What's hard to understand is how that didn't happen with Trump.
Different personalities react differently with public opinion, even when they're saying and doing more-or-less the same thing.
Plus Trump was very familiar before he ever ran for president, and the (wildly inaccurate, as it turned out) impression the average American had of him before he ran for president was of a competent, successful and decisive businessman who spoke his mind and ran a corporate empire. He told people—or the people who became his base, at least— what they wanted to hear, and when he talked about cleaning up the swamp, they heard the star of “The Apprentice” saying “You’re fired.”
DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
What's hard to understand is how that didn't happen with Trump.
Different personalities react differently with public opinion, even when they're saying and doing more-or-less the same thing.
Plus Trump was very familiar before he ever ran for president, and the (wildly inaccurate, as it turned out) impression the average American had of him before he ran for president was of a competent, successful and decisive businessman who spoke his mind and ran a corporate empire. He told people—or the people who became his base, at least— what they wanted to hear, and when he talked about cleaning up the swamp, they heard the star of “The Apprentice” saying “You’re fired.”
All true. Plus, on certain divisive issues, he was originally enough of a perceived outsider that moderates could be conned into thinking he was pushing something other than standard GOP policies, eg. the pro-choice woman in the Rust Belt was quoted in 2016 as saying she wasn't worried that Trump would be anti-choice, because he had probably paid for alot of abortions himself.
Whereas even if it became known that eg. DeSantis had a glbqt nephew he was on good terms with, I don't think there are many socially liberal people who would take that as an indication that he was secretly on their side.
DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
What's hard to understand is how that didn't happen with Trump.
We shouldn't kid ourselves that he didn't have a certain charisma (thuggish appeal coupled with comic timing).
DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
What's hard to understand is how that didn't happen with Trump.
We shouldn't kid ourselves that he didn't have a certain charisma (thuggish appeal coupled with comic timing).
I'll direct you to a post I made a while back linking to a blog entry arguing that unlike personal charisma, political charisma is something assigned by an audience rather than something innate to a leader. As for why this works for Trump but not for DeSantis (or at least not to the same degree), Donald Trump P01135809 is like that obnoxious drunk relative at family gatherings who says a lot of racist stuff. A lot of people are like that themselves or think that kind of person is rude but "may have a point" or similar. That's the audience assigning political charisma to Trump P01135809. DeSantis gives the impression of some kind of unpleasant entity wearing a human suit. "I see you are ingesting nutrients, fellow humans. I also enjoy ingesting nutrients!"
DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
What's hard to understand is how that didn't happen with Trump.
We shouldn't kid ourselves that he didn't have a certain charisma (thuggish appeal coupled with comic timing).
I'll direct you to a post I made a while back linking to a blog entry arguing that unlike personal charisma, political charisma is something assigned by an audience rather than something innate to a leader. As for why this works for Trump but not for DeSantis (or at least not to the same degree), Donald Trump P01135809 is like that obnoxious drunk relative at family gatherings who says a lot of racist stuff.
I wouldn't disagree with the wider point about personal vs political charisma, but think there are more people than would find Trump good company than you would credit.
I think he might, because it's an easy way for an rich anti-Trump Romney-alike to do some signalling without much consequence, angling for a post-Trump "Look I always supported his opponents" vibe. I'm not sure it's worth continuing from DeSantis's POV though because it's hopeless and he should cut his losses rather than becoming a convenient Trump punchbag a la "Little Marco" or "Lyin' Ted"
DeSantis has suspended canvassing in four states. He is pleading for $50 million to continue is campaign. Will he get it?
The news I’ve seen is that the DeSantis-aligned super PAC Never Back Down—which by law can’t coordinate with him or his campaign (and yes, we all know the ways that’s worked around)—that has suspended fund-raising in four states and that has told donors and potential donors that it needs to raise $50 million by the end of 2023. But that’s not DeSantis pleading for $50 million or suspending his campaign in those four states.
DeSantis has suspended canvassing in four states. He is pleading for $50 million to continue is campaign. Will he get it?
The news I’ve seen is that the DeSantis-aligned super PAC Never Back Down—which by law can’t coordinate with him or his campaign (and yes, we all know the ways that’s worked around)—that has suspended fund-raising in four states and that has told donors and potential donors that it needs to raise $50 million by the end of 2023. But that’s not DeSantis pleading for $50 million or suspending his campaign in those four states.
Well, maybe it is somewhere in the middle. The Never Back Down PAC has suspended door knocking (canvassing) in Nevada, California, Texas and North Carolina. The door knocking has been redirected to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina according to this article. .
They have never given up fund raising anywhere, just the people that go door to door to encourage people to vote for their candidate.
The American political press has some seriously messed up priorities. For example, paragraph one in this Axios piece is essentially "OMG! President Biden is wearing sneakers!!!"
Paragraph seventeen is "Candidate Trump pledged to execute his political rivals and silence press that's critical of him."
His aides aren't wrong to worry Biden might trip and fall, and it would be disastrous for his campaign, but yeah, the political press is shitting the bed.
The death rattle of the hallowed First-in-the-Nation Iowa Democratic Caucuses took a while to subside. But now it’s done. Yes, Iowa Democrats will still get together in precinct gatherings on January 15, the same day when Iowa Republicans caucus to formally launch the 2024 Republican nominating contest. But thanks to a national party mandate insisted upon by President Joe Biden, there will be no presidential preference balloting at the Democratic caucuses. A separate, mail-in ballot process will culminate in the announcement of the results on March 5, Super Tuesday, safely outside the “early state” window Iowa once dominated, and in the midst of a cascade of votes that will confirm Biden’s nomination.
Iowa’s defenestration from the early-state window was caused by three interrelated factors that came together to overcome the first-in-the-nation tradition. First, Democrats have moved decisively to outlaw caucuses as a method for awarding national-convention delegates, compared to more open and inclusive primaries. Second, Iowa was deemed far too unrepresentative of the country demographically to maintain such a highly influential position on the nominating calendar. And third, the last Democratic Caucuses in 2020 were a huge mess with the state party unable to report the results on Caucus Night (though arguably national party mandates helped make that happen). You could add as a fourth, decisive factor: Biden’s poor performance in Iowa en route to his nomination and election; certainly the White House owed the state no favors.
About time too! Caucuses are a terrible way to allocate delegates and there's no good reason Iowa should always go first in the presidential nominating process. That leaves New Hampshire as the early state holdout jeopardizing its delegate count.
Now the only apparent troublemakers left in the presidential nominating arena are New Hampshire’s Democrats, who have no choice but to follow state law and conduct a presidential primary on January 23; the DNC has demanded New Hampshire give way to the vastly more diverse South Carolina as the first primary state and vote instead on February 6, the same day as Nevada’s primary. The Republicans who control New Hampshire’s legislature have refused to play ball, leaving their Democratic counterparts to hold a rogue event that will cost New Hampshire at least half its delegation to the Democratic convention in Chicago next year, while creating the possibility of an embarrassing upset of President Biden, who won’t participate in a primary that defies his own calendar rules.
That possible upset became less possible yesterday when RFK, Jr. announced he was giving up his run for the Democratic presidential nomination and would instead be campaigning as an independent. Still, I can sort of appreciate New Hampshire's position. Not only are the state's Democrats constrained by state law, a state whose primary industry is tourism would be naturally opposed to giving up the quadrennial 'running of the journalists'.
The Democrats don't actually hold the election. The state of New Hampshire holds the election. The whole point of the state law saying their primary is the first one is to have the first say, so there's no way the state would hold the results.
The Democrats don't actually hold the election. The state of New Hampshire holds the election. The whole point of the state law saying their primary is the first one is to have the first say, so there's no way the state would hold the results.
Have we covered thoughts about RFK, Jr. changing horses mid-campaign, and running henceforth as an Independent?
I think he hurts the GOP more than the Democrats. He's anti-vax(now almost exclusively a Republican position, at least as far as voting goes) and anti-choice, and I don't think any liberal positions he may take will be enough to balance that off for Democratic voters. Nor will his family name.
Have we covered thoughts about RFK, Jr. changing horses mid-campaign, and running henceforth as an Independent?
I think he hurts the GOP more than the Democrats. He's anti-vax(now almost exclusively a Republican position, at least as far as voting goes) and anti-choice, and I don't think any liberal positions he may take will be enough to balance that off for Democratic voters. Nor will his family name.
Mike Pence has now suspended his presidential campaign. He was just not getting any traction. He did say he will work to get "principled" Republican candidates into office.
Today (November 7) is the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November, which means that it's election day in the U.S. Most American elections happen in even numbered years so there's not that much going on today. Nevertheless there are a few races that will be pored over by pundits as indicators of what the electorate is like one year in advance of next year's presidential election.
Kentucky: Democratic Governor Andy Beshear is running for re-election in this very red state. (Donald Trump won Kentucky's presidential vote by nearly 26 percentage points.) Beshear is one of the most popular governors in the country, but we'll see if that's enough for him to keep his office against the general political leanings of his constituents. He's being challenged by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron. Polls close 6:00 pm in this state, but Kentucky straddles two time zones.
Ohio:
This state is not electing governors or legislators this year. The big election is the vote on Issue 1, a referendum to amend the Ohio state constitution to protect reproductive freedom, including the right to abortion. Polls indicate fairly wide support for Issue 1 among Ohio voters. This vote could measure how much Dobbs is affecting the American electorate a year and a half after the Supreme Court handed down the decision. I think turnout will be more of an indicator than margin here, since there are no offices above the municipal level on the ballot in Ohio this year.
Also on the ballot in Ohio is Issue 2, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. This may provide similar data on where the electorate is at as Issue 1. Polls close in Ohio at 7:30 EST.
Virginia: There are elections for the state legislatures in this closely divided state this year. Currently the state senate is controlled by Democrats and the House of Delegates is controlled by Republicans. Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin has been heavily involved in this campaign, arguing that voters should give control of both houses to Republicans so he can advance the Republican agenda in the state. We shall see if this is a winning argument in 2023. Youngkin himself is not up for re-election until 2025. Polls in Virginia close at 7:00 pm EST.
Youngkin himself is not up for re-election until 2025. Polls in Virginia close at 7:00 pm EST.
Sorry, this should have stated that Youngkin's term ends at the end of 2025. Virginia limits its governors to a single term so Youngkin will not be running for re-election.
I have asked that the thread I started on off year elections be closed since @Crœsos put his thoughts on this thread.
A couple of thoughts I want to include I copy and paste from that my thread, though.
The Mississippi Governor's race is very interesting. It might be the first time since Jimmy Carter was president that a Democratic nominee, might win. The current Republican governor is implicated in a welfare fraud scheme that has already sent seven of his cronies to jail. The Democratic nominee is courting the black vote, and advocating for Medicaid expansion that will actually save Mississippi millions of dollars and improve the health of its poorer residents.
The neighboring state, Idaho, has an open primary initiative on the ballot which will end the Republican closed primary and allow all voters to participate in an election process that will ultimately place four candidates per office on the election ballot. Then in the election, voters will have ranked choice votes. It is a process that has been used in Alaska with some interesting results. The hope is it will move Idaho to a more moderate state, maybe pink rather than solid red. We will see.
Point of order re: US geography — Idaho is not a neighboring state to Mississippi.
And as a Progressive who’s currently living in MS I’m pretty confident that the Republican incumbent will be reëlected. There’s really no level of scandal that will change the status quo down here.
Kentucky: Democratic Governor Andy Beshear is running for re-election in this very red state. (Donald Trump won Kentucky's presidential vote by nearly 26 percentage points.) Beshear is one of the most popular governors in the country, but we'll see if that's enough for him to keep his office against the general political leanings of his constituents. He's being challenged by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron. Polls close 6:00 pm in this state, but Kentucky straddles two time zones.
I did my part to vote Cameron down!
Those outside KY might not be familiar with him - he was the commonwealth's attorney general when Breonna Taylor was killed, and did everything he could to avoid charging any of the shooters with a crime. His presentation to the eventual grand jury was such that three of the jurors later petitioned to have him impeached for lying to the public.
Point of order re: US geography — Idaho is not a neighboring state to Mississippi.
And as a Progressive who’s currently living in MS I’m pretty confident that the Republican incumbent will be reëlected. There’s really no level of scandal that will change the status quo down here.
I live in Washington. I live eight miles away from Idaho. It is my neigboring state. Follow?
To your govenor's race, the last polls before the election showed Presley and Reeves were tied 47 to 47. I think it depends on how many people want to be insured through Medicaid.
Do now. Didn’t know you are in Washington. Don’t know American geography. Assumed from what you wrote that you were saying Idaho neighbours Mississippi. Didn’t know that was wrong. ‘My neighbouring state…’ would have been clear. What you put was not.
Do now. Didn’t know you are in Washington. Don’t know American geography. Assumed from what you wrote that you were saying Idaho neighbours Mississippi. Didn’t know that was wrong. ‘My neighbouring state…’ would have been clear. What you put was not.
Haven't you heard me praising Washington apples or potates in the past? In the first post of the thread now closed, I said "Our neighboring state...:" I just thought most people knew I lived in the Evergreen state. I know I have said Go Cougs every so often.
In answer to your first question, No, I haven’t. I also hadn’t read the closed thread. Your last two sentences convey nothing more specific to me than that you’re an American.
In answer to your first question, No, I haven’t. I also hadn’t read the closed thread. Your last two sentences convey nothing more specific to me than that you’re an American.
Well, I just started a new thread in All Saints, that gives you a good idea where I do live. It shows the general area from about 500 km up, but if you want to zoom in, you can see my roof top. Zoom out, you can see where I live in the US.
The results from yesterday's elections were pretty good for Democrats and their sympathizers.
Kentucky: Democratic Governor Beshear won re-election and did so by a wider margin (5.1 percentage points) than he did in 2019 (0.4 percentage points). Despite this Democrats lost every other statewide race pretty badly, so the result here may be Beshear-specific.
Ohio: Both Issue 1 (reproductive rights) and Issue 2 (legalized marijuana) were approved by voters. Turnout for these seems to have been about 3.9 million voters, though votes are still being counted. For comparison Ohio's voter turnout for it's 2022 U.S. Senate election was 4.1 million and Ohio's turnout was 5.9 million for the 2020 presidential race. So voters are apparently motivated to show up at the polls, at least when these two specific issues are on the ballot.
Virginia: Democrats retained control of the state Senate and gained control of the House of Delegates. The exact margins are unclear since a few races still haven't been called yet, but this is pretty much the exact opposite of what Governor Youngkin was campaigning for. This may have effects on the presidential race. Youngkin has been seen as a possible non-Trump candidate but said he was concentrating on turning the Virginia legislature Republican. With that dream in tatters Youngkin probably looks a lot less attractive now.
A lot of Democratic candidates campaigned heavily on abortion rights, so apparently that issue still has significant traction.
Reproductive rights have been voted on in seven states. All of them went pro choice. Next year, it will be up for a vote in at lease eleven more states. The parties learned long ago to come out in favor of one hot issue, and they were likely to win.
Note to @The_Riv looks like Reeves won handily, as you predicted. However, looking at the NBC election map for Mississippi, I was struck with how much blue there was on the East and West side of the State. It was that pesky center almost along the Trace that seemed red.
Some thoughts: off-year elections often have relatively low turnout, which in places where Democrats do not have overwhelming majorities has meant that Republicans have historically have had an advantage because older, richer voters tend to vote in every election, no matter what. Now that college educated voters have been trending towards the Democrats, this pattern is shifting, such that off-year, low turnout elections might favor Democrats in some cases. Trump has accelerated this trend because when his name is on the ballot, and only when his name is on the ballot, low-information voters tend to come out and vote who don't feel motivated to vote otherwise. These voters are not political junkies like those who watch Fox News 24/7 - they were likely to vote for Trump anyway. They are people who feel completely alienated from both political parties but for whatever reason believe Trump is fighting for them, or at least that Trump pisses off the people they don't like. I'm sure there are lots of ugly reasons why such people might be motivated to vote for Trump, but regardless all of this means that Democrats' relatively strong performance in elections this year might not necessarily mean that they are favored to win in 2024.
This next paragraph is about abortion but I don't know how to make it hidden.
Also, anger and fear at new abortion restrictions at the state level means that some Trump supporters (who as I alluded above are not always consistently ideologically conservative) might vote against Republicans at the state level but would still support Trump for President in 2024. This may not make much sense (since Trump appointed the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe v. Wade), but this subset of voters probably views Trump's rhetoric on immigration, crime, and anti-wokeness as what is most important rather than any religious or economic beliefs. That is why I think most Republican leaders privately hope that a 15-week federal ban on abortion goes nowhere, either by dying in the Senate or being vetoed by a Democratic President, even if they support it in public or vote for it in Congress. They don't want this subset of Trump supporters that don't like abortion restrictions to realize that voting for Republicans at the federal level and sometimes not for Republicans at the state level can still result in them having to live with abortion restrictions.
Some thoughts: off-year elections often have relatively low turnout, . . .
Relative to what? Certainly lower than presidential election years, but as I noted above turnout in Ohio was about the same as for a mid-term election. The same is true in Kentucky, where an estimated 1.35 million ballots were cast in the 2023 gubernatorial election compared to 1.48 million ballots in the 2022 U.S. Senate race in that state. Yes, the off-year numbers are lower (and are estimates because votes are still being counted) than the mid-term numbers, but not by that much. This seems like a significant change.
Also, anger and fear at new abortion restrictions at the state level means that some Trump supporters (who as I alluded above are not always consistently ideologically conservative) might vote against Republicans at the state level but would still support Trump for President in 2024. This may not make much sense (since Trump appointed the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe v. Wade), but this subset of voters probably views Trump's rhetoric on immigration, crime, and anti-wokeness as what is most important rather than any religious or economic beliefs. That is why I think most Republican leaders privately hope that a 15-week federal ban on abortion goes nowhere, either by dying in the Senate or being vetoed by a Democratic President, even if they support it in public or vote for it in Congress. They don't want this subset of Trump supporters that don't like abortion restrictions to realize that voting for Republicans at the federal level and sometimes not for Republicans at the state level can still result in them having to live with abortion restrictions.
The basic problem is that the Republican position on abortion is wildly unpopular with most Americans. This is actually true about a lot of issues, but voters are willing to overlook it until it looks like something that could affect them personally. One of the things we saw during the 2023 off-year election was Democrats being willing to run openly on the issue of abortion rights, and to win by doing so. Tactics that work tend to be repeated so I'm expecting Democrats to hang Dobbs around Trump's neck at every opportunity in 2024.
Notice, I keep using the word "choice." It is not about one procedure that is being banned. It is about a number of other medical procedures and rights that can also be restricted, even banned, if Republicans have their way. Here is an article that discusses some of those procedures.
I read about that in The Guardian's International edition. As President (God forbid) would he really have the power to order the F.B.I to pursue personal vendettas?
(when I was reading the article I thought not, but given his behaviour I wasn't sure).
I read about that in The Guardian's International edition. As President (God forbid) would he really have the power to order the F.B.I to pursue personal vendettas?
(when I was reading the article I thought not, but given his behaviour I wasn't sure).
He probably doesn't officially, but he could probably put some pliant hacks in as FBI director and relevant posts in the Justice Department.
Yes, The Person Who Shall Not Be Named, has said if elected president, he will send the FBI after his political opponents. He has already said he would see Gen. Milley be given a death sentence.
Yes, The Person Who Shall Not Be Named, has said if elected president, he will send the FBI after his political opponents. He has already said he would see Gen. Milley be given a death sentence.
The list of things that Donald Trump has said he would do but then didn’t or couldn’t do is very, very long.
Yes, The Person Who Shall Not Be Named, has said if elected president, he will send the FBI after his political opponents. He has already said he would see Gen. Milley be given a death sentence.
The list of things that Donald Trump has said he would do but then didn’t or couldn’t do is very, very long.
Yes, but the reason is rarely "because he just wouldn't do something that bad".
Comments
This is probably key, most voters hadn't actually seen much of DeSantis until recently and the more they see, the less they like him.
What's hard to understand is how that didn't happen with Trump.
Different personalities react differently with public opinion, even when they're saying and doing more-or-less the same thing.
All true. Plus, on certain divisive issues, he was originally enough of a perceived outsider that moderates could be conned into thinking he was pushing something other than standard GOP policies, eg. the pro-choice woman in the Rust Belt was quoted in 2016 as saying she wasn't worried that Trump would be anti-choice, because he had probably paid for alot of abortions himself.
Whereas even if it became known that eg. DeSantis had a glbqt nephew he was on good terms with, I don't think there are many socially liberal people who would take that as an indication that he was secretly on their side.
We shouldn't kid ourselves that he didn't have a certain charisma (thuggish appeal coupled with comic timing).
I'll direct you to a post I made a while back linking to a blog entry arguing that unlike personal charisma, political charisma is something assigned by an audience rather than something innate to a leader. As for why this works for Trump but not for DeSantis (or at least not to the same degree), Donald Trump P01135809 is like that obnoxious drunk relative at family gatherings who says a lot of racist stuff. A lot of people are like that themselves or think that kind of person is rude but "may have a point" or similar. That's the audience assigning political charisma to Trump P01135809. DeSantis gives the impression of some kind of unpleasant entity wearing a human suit. "I see you are ingesting nutrients, fellow humans. I also enjoy ingesting nutrients!"
I wouldn't disagree with the wider point about personal vs political charisma, but think there are more people than would find Trump good company than you would credit.
Well, maybe it is somewhere in the middle. The Never Back Down PAC has suspended door knocking (canvassing) in Nevada, California, Texas and North Carolina. The door knocking has been redirected to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina according to this article. .
They have never given up fund raising anywhere, just the people that go door to door to encourage people to vote for their candidate.
Paragraph seventeen is "Candidate Trump pledged to execute his political rivals and silence press that's critical of him."
About time too! Caucuses are a terrible way to allocate delegates and there's no good reason Iowa should always go first in the presidential nominating process. That leaves New Hampshire as the early state holdout jeopardizing its delegate count.
That possible upset became less possible yesterday when RFK, Jr. announced he was giving up his run for the Democratic presidential nomination and would instead be campaigning as an independent. Still, I can sort of appreciate New Hampshire's position. Not only are the state's Democrats constrained by state law, a state whose primary industry is tourism would be naturally opposed to giving up the quadrennial 'running of the journalists'.
Liz Cheney
Andrew Yang
Howard Stern
Ye, formerly known as Kenye West
Dwayne Johnson
I could vote for Liz.
Ah, I see.
It was mentioned briefly, but in the context of early primaries, not as its own topic.
I think he hurts the GOP more than the Democrats. He's anti-vax(now almost exclusively a Republican position, at least as far as voting goes) and anti-choice, and I don't think any liberal positions he may take will be enough to balance that off for Democratic voters. Nor will his family name.
That seems to be the opinion of the Trump campaign. Trump proxies are already highlighting RFK, Jr.'s environmental positions and race-baiting as a way to make him less attractive to GOP voters.
Kentucky: Democratic Governor Andy Beshear is running for re-election in this very red state. (Donald Trump won Kentucky's presidential vote by nearly 26 percentage points.) Beshear is one of the most popular governors in the country, but we'll see if that's enough for him to keep his office against the general political leanings of his constituents. He's being challenged by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron. Polls close 6:00 pm in this state, but Kentucky straddles two time zones.
Ohio:
Also on the ballot in Ohio is Issue 2, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. This may provide similar data on where the electorate is at as Issue 1. Polls close in Ohio at 7:30 EST.
Virginia: There are elections for the state legislatures in this closely divided state this year. Currently the state senate is controlled by Democrats and the House of Delegates is controlled by Republicans. Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin has been heavily involved in this campaign, arguing that voters should give control of both houses to Republicans so he can advance the Republican agenda in the state. We shall see if this is a winning argument in 2023. Youngkin himself is not up for re-election until 2025. Polls in Virginia close at 7:00 pm EST.
Sorry, this should have stated that Youngkin's term ends at the end of 2025. Virginia limits its governors to a single term so Youngkin will not be running for re-election.
A couple of thoughts I want to include I copy and paste from that my thread, though.
The Mississippi Governor's race is very interesting. It might be the first time since Jimmy Carter was president that a Democratic nominee, might win. The current Republican governor is implicated in a welfare fraud scheme that has already sent seven of his cronies to jail. The Democratic nominee is courting the black vote, and advocating for Medicaid expansion that will actually save Mississippi millions of dollars and improve the health of its poorer residents.
The neighboring state, Idaho, has an open primary initiative on the ballot which will end the Republican closed primary and allow all voters to participate in an election process that will ultimately place four candidates per office on the election ballot. Then in the election, voters will have ranked choice votes. It is a process that has been used in Alaska with some interesting results. The hope is it will move Idaho to a more moderate state, maybe pink rather than solid red. We will see.
And as a Progressive who’s currently living in MS I’m pretty confident that the Republican incumbent will be reëlected. There’s really no level of scandal that will change the status quo down here.
I did my part to vote Cameron down!
Those outside KY might not be familiar with him - he was the commonwealth's attorney general when Breonna Taylor was killed, and did everything he could to avoid charging any of the shooters with a crime. His presentation to the eventual grand jury was such that three of the jurors later petitioned to have him impeached for lying to the public.
I live in Washington. I live eight miles away from Idaho. It is my neigboring state. Follow?
To your govenor's race, the last polls before the election showed Presley and Reeves were tied 47 to 47. I think it depends on how many people want to be insured through Medicaid.
Haven't you heard me praising Washington apples or potates in the past? In the first post of the thread now closed, I said "Our neighboring state...:" I just thought most people knew I lived in the Evergreen state. I know I have said Go Cougs every so often.
Well, I just started a new thread in All Saints, that gives you a good idea where I do live. It shows the general area from about 500 km up, but if you want to zoom in, you can see my roof top. Zoom out, you can see where I live in the US.
Kentucky: Democratic Governor Beshear won re-election and did so by a wider margin (5.1 percentage points) than he did in 2019 (0.4 percentage points). Despite this Democrats lost every other statewide race pretty badly, so the result here may be Beshear-specific.
Ohio: Both Issue 1 (reproductive rights) and Issue 2 (legalized marijuana) were approved by voters. Turnout for these seems to have been about 3.9 million voters, though votes are still being counted. For comparison Ohio's voter turnout for it's 2022 U.S. Senate election was 4.1 million and Ohio's turnout was 5.9 million for the 2020 presidential race. So voters are apparently motivated to show up at the polls, at least when these two specific issues are on the ballot.
Virginia: Democrats retained control of the state Senate and gained control of the House of Delegates. The exact margins are unclear since a few races still haven't been called yet, but this is pretty much the exact opposite of what Governor Youngkin was campaigning for. This may have effects on the presidential race. Youngkin has been seen as a possible non-Trump candidate but said he was concentrating on turning the Virginia legislature Republican. With that dream in tatters Youngkin probably looks a lot less attractive now.
Note to @The_Riv looks like Reeves won handily, as you predicted. However, looking at the NBC election map for Mississippi, I was struck with how much blue there was on the East and West side of the State. It was that pesky center almost along the Trace that seemed red.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2023-elections/mississippi-governor-results
This next paragraph is about abortion but I don't know how to make it hidden.
Also, anger and fear at new abortion restrictions at the state level means that some Trump supporters (who as I alluded above are not always consistently ideologically conservative) might vote against Republicans at the state level but would still support Trump for President in 2024. This may not make much sense (since Trump appointed the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe v. Wade), but this subset of voters probably views Trump's rhetoric on immigration, crime, and anti-wokeness as what is most important rather than any religious or economic beliefs. That is why I think most Republican leaders privately hope that a 15-week federal ban on abortion goes nowhere, either by dying in the Senate or being vetoed by a Democratic President, even if they support it in public or vote for it in Congress. They don't want this subset of Trump supporters that don't like abortion restrictions to realize that voting for Republicans at the federal level and sometimes not for Republicans at the state level can still result in them having to live with abortion restrictions.
Relative to what? Certainly lower than presidential election years, but as I noted above turnout in Ohio was about the same as for a mid-term election. The same is true in Kentucky, where an estimated 1.35 million ballots were cast in the 2023 gubernatorial election compared to 1.48 million ballots in the 2022 U.S. Senate race in that state. Yes, the off-year numbers are lower (and are estimates because votes are still being counted) than the mid-term numbers, but not by that much. This seems like a significant change.
The basic problem is that the Republican position on abortion is wildly unpopular with most Americans. This is actually true about a lot of issues, but voters are willing to overlook it until it looks like something that could affect them personally. One of the things we saw during the 2023 off-year election was Democrats being willing to run openly on the issue of abortion rights, and to win by doing so. Tactics that work tend to be repeated so I'm expecting Democrats to hang Dobbs around Trump's neck at every opportunity in 2024.
(when I was reading the article I thought not, but given his behaviour I wasn't sure).
He probably doesn't officially, but he could probably put some pliant hacks in as FBI director and relevant posts in the Justice Department.
Yes, but the reason is rarely "because he just wouldn't do something that bad".