Trump's doing his best to hand the Senate to Democrats on a silver platter. Again.

[Tiny]

Control of the Senate will hinge on three states, Montana, Ohio and Arizona.

In Ohio, Trump supported Bernie Moreno over Matt Dolan. Matt Dolan probably would beat the Democratic incumbent, Sherrod Brown, in a general election. With Moreno, it's a toss up.

In Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema has withdrawn from the race. While Sinema was a Democrat for most of the time she was in the Senate, she and Joe Manchin were bulwarks against some of Biden's crazier proposals. The Democratic candidate this year, Ruben Gallego, is in the mold of Elizabeth Warren or AOC. He's very beatable in a purple state like Arizona. Unfortunately the Republican candidate will be Trump acolyte and election denier Kari Lake. Gallego is favored to win.

This looks like a repeat of 2022, when a number of Trump's favored candidates lost elections. Democrats at the time spent around $40 million during the primary season boosting prospects for Trump endorsees, knowing they were weak general election candidates. They did the same thing this year, helping Moreno over Dolan in the Ohio race.

And then there were the 2021 Senate runoffs in Georgia, when Trump's election denialism and lukewarm support cost Republicans control of the Senate.

Loyalty to Trump, including defending him for trying to overturn the 2020 election, should not be the primary criterion for selecting Congressional candidates. That's a recipe for making America a one party (Democratic Party) state.

This thread is dedicated to Salty, who made me think about this.

[winn dixie]

Moreno.
Kari lake. embarrassment

[1blackman1]

We like it when Trump picks the Republican candidates. So much winning Republicans get tired of it.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Loyalty to Trump, including defending him for trying to overturn the 2020 election, should not be the primary criterion for selecting Congressional candidates. That's a recipe for making America a one party (Democratic Party) state.

This thread is dedicated to Salty, who made me think about this.

I’m not a fan of single party rule either. But if the option is a liberal democracy or a populist autocracy I know which one I would prefer.

The difference in my opinion is that the democratic party is not beholden to the crazy socialist left. It seems to me that the republican party is eating the people who are actually working across the aisle leaving behind the people who are too afraid to vote bipartisan because they fear a primary challenger.

Until the republican voters wise up and start choosing better candidates the chances of single party rule becomes more likely.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I’m not a fan of single party rule either. But if the option is a liberal democracy or a populist autocracy I know which one I would prefer.

The difference in my opinion is that the democratic party is not beholden to the crazy socialist left. It seems to me that the republican party is eating the people who are actually working across the aisle leaving behind the people who are too afraid to challenge Trump because they fear a primary challenger.

Until the republican voters wise up and start choosing better candidates the chances of single party rule becomes more likely.

Since Lusty Lad is gone for a while, I'm taking up the baton and changing posts to make them more accurate -- see red text. That's not to say he'd agree with me on this.

I hope you're right, about the beholden part. Biden's a lot farther left on economic and tax issues than Obama or Clinton. I'm not sure whether it's a political strategy, or he's up in years and following along with his young advisors who lean strongly left, or maybe he was like that all along and it just never came out.

[1blackman1]

Maybe you've fallen so far over the Grover Norquist cliff that you're unable to see what moderate tax and economic policy looks like. Bernie and Elizabeth are leftist tax and spenders. Biden is a moderate, maybe slightly left but moderate. Everyone remaining on the right has become captive to the nuttier wing and absolutists like Norquist.

And please don't take up the lying by editing of our old pal Lusty. Fortunately, I don't miss him at all since he was blocked anyway.

[txdot-guy]

Biden talks big on tax issues, saying that he’ll only raise taxes on the wealthy. The truth is that he is likely to sign anything that comes out of congress as long as it’s bipartisan.

Democrats have made a living telling people that they won’t have to pay for the spending they have authorized into law. However if democrats actually want to implement all the social programs they want, taxes on everyone all the way to the bottom will have to be increased.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Maybe you've fallen so far over the Grover Norquist cliff that you're unable to see what moderate tax and economic policy looks like. Bernie and Elizabeth are leftist tax and spenders. Biden is a moderate, maybe slightly left but moderate. Everyone remaining on the right has become captive to the nuttier wing and absolutists like Norquist.

And please don't take up the lying by editing of our old pal Lusty. Fortunately, I don't miss him at all since he was blocked anyway.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Biden talks big on tax issues, saying that he’ll only raise taxes on the wealthy. The truth is that he is likely to sign anything that comes out of congress as long as it’s bipartisan.

Democrats have made a living telling people that they won’t have to pay for the spending they have authorized into law. However if democrats actually want to implement all the social programs they want, taxes on everyone all the way to the bottom will have to be increased.

Gentlemen, I strongly agree with Txdot and strongly disagree with Blackman. However, all three of us risk incurring the wrath of Biomed for being off topic unless we move this to another thread. If you'd like to discuss further, I'd suggest going to the "How are we going to pay for all this shit?" thread.

[Yssup Rider]

If the dems were propping up MAGAs in the primaries it was a smart move. Those three dipshits couldn’t win a cockfight if the were using their own cocks.

[Salty Again]

... Blimey! .. Did I see the OP mention Matt Dolan??
Dolan is gonna be a Ohio voice for Conservatives?? ...
His family couldn't even keep their "Indians" baseball name.
Rolled-over like a frightened dingo! ... How was HE gonna
stand up to the Democrats in the Senate??

Surely seem Ohio Republicans made their choice.
The Primary wasn't even close... Morano won by what? ... 15 points?

... I always laugh like a crazy bird when liberal lads try to
tell Republicans how to vote... ...

#### Salty

[Yssup Rider]

For some reason, crazy bird, these MAGA loons are winning primaries that set up can’t win scenarios for the GOP.

What do you suppouse that reason is?

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

For some reason, crazy bird, these MAGA loons are winning primaries that set up can’t win scenarios for the GOP.

What do you suppouse that reason is?

I'll answer if no maga gets it.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... I always laugh like a crazy bird when liberal lads try to
tell Republicans how to vote... ... :cheers

Laugh if you wish ... I mean, it's always nice to find comedic value where you can!

But do you really want to cheer on candidates who maximize Republicans' chances of losing in November, purely in the interest of enforcing "ideological purity?"

Think back to how Donald's QAnon buddy Lin Wood all but single-handedly threw away Georgia's Senate run-off elections in January 2001 by imploring Republican voters to sit out the election.

And how another Trump-supported Senate candidate in Arizona, Blake Masters, was a total embarrassment.

Then there was the Hershel Walker fiasco in Georgia. Donald pushed his candidacy as well, but have you ever seen a worse candidate?

Obviously, Republicans significantly underperformed expectations in the 2022 midterms. Why do you think that happened?

Donald's ardent idolaters were told years ago that there would be so many victories that they'll get "tried of winning!"

I suppose the biggest MAGA fans will tire of all this winning any day now. (Just wait!)

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

If the dems were propping up MAGAs in the primaries it was a smart move...

Yep, and haven't they run that playbook with some degree of success before?

Anyone remember the Missouri Senate election of 2012?

Claire McCaskill was considered rather vulnerable at the time, and perhaps Republicans only had to run a reasonably non-ridiculous candidate in order to pick up the seat.

But look what happened!

First, the McCaskill campaign painted Todd Akin, one of three running in the GOP primary, as "too conservative" for Missouri, baiting gullible primary voters into a trap.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns...issouri-131032

Then Republican Todd Akin, a hardcore anti-abortion social conservative, said during the campaign that women were unlikely to be impregnated during a "legitimate rape" (whatever in the hell that actually means!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin

Instant meltdown! Maybe that rendered Akin a worse Senate candidate than Herschel Walker was in Georgia ten years later. (Although that's a high bar to clear!)

[Yssup Rider]

Exactly TC.

But but but … the polls!

Browns vulnerability just got a shot in the arm.

LOLLING!