The 2022 Congressional Elections

[BigRedBuster]

 

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/herschel-walker-says-trump-is-lying-about-asking-him-to-run-for-senate-im-mad-hes-taking-credit/

 

Quote

 

Herschel Walker, Georgia’s Republican nominee for Senate, accused former President Donald Trump of lying about asking him to run.

Walker, the former NFL running back who has been endorsed by Trump, told rapper Killer Mike in a wide-ranging interview on Revolt TV that he did not run for office because Trump asked him to.

“One thing that people don’t know is President Trump never asked me. I need to tell him that he never asked. I heard it all on television that he’s going to ask Herschel, saying Hershel is going to run,” Walker said. “President Trump never came out and said ‘Herschel, will you run for that Senate seat?'”

“So, I’m mad at him, because he never asked, but he’s taking credit that he asked,” Walker said.

Walker explained that his religious convictions inspired him to run.

 

 

[TGHusker]

Liz Cheney has her work cut out for her.  I hope her rabbit in the hat is an indictment of Trump due to Jan 6.  

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/liz-cheneys-uphill-path-re-election-runs-trump-rcna31053

Quote

 

Amid a full-on political war with former President Donald Trump, it's getting trickier for Rep. Liz Cheney's allies to defend her to fellow Wyoming Republicans in a renomination bid that many folks here expect her to lose.

“There’s going to be some very serious discussions going forward on what does it look like to actually campaign in Wyoming for Liz," state Rep. Landon Brown, a Republican who backs Cheney and shares her views on Trump, said in a telephone interview. "I don’t know that the Republican Party wants to see that hard-core fight.”

 

"At this point," he added, "I'm not sure it's going to be an effective strategy for her to solely go after [Trumpism]."

But Cheney has turned her national argument that Trump is a danger to the party and the country into the centerpiece of her campaign in a five-way primary Aug. 16. To some, her decision to focus on Trump looks like a political kamikaze mission that could benefit her only if a defeat can transform her into a 2024 presidential candidate — or at least give her a bigger platform outside electoral politics.

Cheney allies insist she is running to win, but not at the cost of delivering her anti-Trump message.

"She knows it's an uphill battle," said a person close to Cheney. "But she's not going to change her stance to win an election."

Trump, who won Wyoming by a larger margin than he did any other state in 2020, is happy to shift their battle to the friendliest of turf. On Saturday, he staged a rally here with a dual purpose: to tear down Cheney and to promote her most prominent rival, lawyer Harriet Hageman.

 

 

Quote

 

Cheney's strategy is unique among Republicans who have stood up to Trump: Many have chosen to retire rather than face brutal re-election bids; others have sought to appease his base.

In Georgia this month, Gov. Brian Kemp won renomination against Trump-backed former Sen. David Perdue by signing a flurry of conservative laws and refusing to engage in public feuding with the former president. His team said his aim — a successful one — was to create a permission structure for voters to back both Trump and Kemp.

That's not at all what Cheney is doing. She's focusing on Trump and making the case that his politics are destructive.

“If our generation does not stand for truth, the rule of law and our Constitution, if we set aside our founding principles for the politics of the moment, the miracle of our constitutional republic will slip away,” Cheney said in a video last week that all but named Trump as her enemy. “I am asking you to join me to rise above the lies, to rise above the toxic politics, to defend our freedom to do what we all know is right.” 

Her best hope for re-election is to cobble together a coalition of anti-Trump Republicans, some set of voters who can abide both of them and a combination of Democrats and unaffiliated voters, who are allowed to cast Republican primary ballots in Wyoming's partly "open" system.

"I will be voting for Liz Cheney, because she has common sense and she promotes democracy. And the other ones do not, and I'm just tired of it," said Patty Gardner of Cheyenne, a onetime Democrat who switched her registration to Republican last month so she could vote for Cheney. 

But Cheney is leaving little room for possible Trump-Cheney voters.

"There is no middle ground here: You are either Team Cheney or Team Harriet," said a Republican source with deep ties in the state. "Gotta think Cheney has something big up her sleeve; otherwise she's going to lose big."

The biggest thing Cheney has going for her is a campaign treasury that had $6.7 million at last count, more than six times Hageman's count and enough that Hageman advisers wonder whether Cheney can spend it all in a state with inexpensive media markets.

It’s hard to overstate the intensity with which Trump's staunchest backers hate Cheney, who voted to impeach Trump, joined the Democratic-led committee investigating his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and continues to blast him publicly at every opportunity.

Debra Carson, 64, of Rock Springs, put their sentiments succinctly in an interview at Trump's rally here: "She's a traitor."

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

15 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Liz Cheney has her work cut out for her.  I hope her rabbit in the hat is an indictment of Trump due to Jan 6.  

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/liz-cheneys-uphill-path-re-election-runs-trump-rcna31053

 

 

Don’t criticize dear leader. 

[Archy1221]

It was always a sham to say the GA law would restrict legal voting and take “people’s right to vote” away or “suppress”  their votes away.  

https://www.mediaite.com/news/bill-maher-grills-eric-holder-on-voting-rights-photo-id-is-popular-with-69-of-black-folks-black-turnout-in-ga-went-up/

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

It was always a sham to say the GA law would restrict legal voting and take “people’s right to vote” away or “suppress”  their votes away.  

https://www.mediaite.com/news/bill-maher-grills-eric-holder-on-voting-rights-photo-id-is-popular-with-69-of-black-folks-black-turnout-in-ga-went-up/

 

Let's wait for the general election and see what the numbers look like. But it's encouraging to see right now.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Let's wait for the general election and see what the numbers look like. But it's encouraging to see right now.

Primary elections don’t matter?  Why do we have to wait when we have clear results now?  People here were outrageously wrong.  

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Primary elections don’t matter?  Why do we have to wait when we have clear results now?  People here were outrageously wrong.  

They do matter, which is why I said it's encouraging. But if there's going to be voter suppression for one party against the other, then the general election is where it matters not the primary. If we see the same results in the general election, then I'll agree with your claim of people being wrong and I will be one of those eating crow - and happy to do so as I'm in favor of more people being able to vote and no one having their vote suppressed.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

They do matter, which is why I said it's encouraging. But if there's going to be voter suppression for one party against the other, then the general election is where it matters not the primary. If we see the same results in the general election, then I'll agree with your claim of people being wrong and I will be one of those eating crow - and happy to do so as I'm in favor of more people being able to vote and no one having their vote suppressed.

Fair enough

[Born N Bled Red]

23 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Primary elections don’t matter?  Why do we have to wait when we have clear results now?  People here were outrageously wrong.  

 

Ok, let's talk this through- 1) only the most passionate of the electorate vote in primaries, this is why closed primaries tend to turn out the most extreme candidates. An increase in primary turn out would indicate that in spite of new laws that might reduce participation, the overall electorate is more impassioned, thus more people voted. 

 

2) Because fewer people vote in primaries, the new laws designed to lower turnout of different populations by overwhelming voting places and discouraging them to stand in long lines waiting to vote (ie. illegal to provide water) an election held in which the expected turn out would not overwhelm the system isn't a guage as to the true impact these laws will have. 

 

3) As you love to point out in other discussions (cough Covid, cough) percentage increase is not always an accurate way to gauge activity. Let's say in the primary typically 2 African Americans vote in precinct A. Because of the new laws, they are pissed off and impassioned enough that they each drag two friends along with them to vote this time, so 4 African Americans voted in that precinct for the primary this time. Well, hot dog. We just increased turn out by 100% that new law didn't hurt them at all. 

 

Meanwhile in a while in another precinct 1000 white people typically vote in the primary. The Republicans, have impassioned their voters enough that 500 additional voters turn out. Well hot dog, they increase their participation by 50% which, oh my gosh, is only half what the African American voter increase is. That law must be a complete sham. - When in reality the voting place in this precinct is already designed to accommodate a larger number of voters, which allowed an additional 500 voters to turn out without issues and mask that against the small increased turnout among other populations. 

 

Of course, you know this. You just refuse to critique or acknowledge any nonsense coming from your party. I do find it amazing, how easy it is for you to argue opposing logic when it benefits your line of thinking. I suppose this is just another symptom of the republican mindset of "I want my party to win at all costs, and retain power regardless the outcome and its impact on the country, because red is good and blue is bad, no matter what is best for the country." 

[Archy1221]

I see some people are still trying to promote the vote suppression lie.  After November, I’m sure we will just hear “well it’s not a Presidential election year so it doesn’t count either.”   

[nic]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/politics/california-primary-election-da-race/index.html

 

"In Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of the nation's most liberal large cities, voters are poised to send stinging messages of discontent over mounting public disorder, as measured in both upticks in certain kinds of crime and pervasive homelessness."

 

"...a widespread sense among voters in both cities that local government is failing at its most basic responsibility: to ensure public safety and order."

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, nic said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/07/politics/california-primary-election-da-race/index.html

 

"In Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of the nation's most liberal large cities, voters are poised to send stinging messages of discontent over mounting public disorder, as measured in both upticks in certain kinds of crime and pervasive homelessness."

 

"...a widespread sense among voters in both cities that local government is failing at its most basic responsibility: to ensure public safety and order."

 

I would hate to be in management of one of those cities.  They have a huge homeless problem.  However, many of those homeless are very employable and some actually have jobs.  They just can't afford the outrageous housing costs.

 

So, how do you fix the housing cost issue?

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, how do you fix the housing cost issue?

 

 

There's so many ways you can start tackling it, but the desire isn't there.

 

Zoning laws are one of the huge factors that make it difficult. Maybe even the biggest. There's endless potential and feasibility for ~$25,000 energy efficient home builds, before you get into all the laws and regulations that make it next to impossible. 

 

I'd love to see, for a start, the government start selling off land it owns and doesn't need (which there is plenty of), with low cost sustainable houses built onto lots at a low-income feasible rate.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

There's so many ways you can start tackling it, but the desire isn't there.

 

Zoning laws are one of the huge factors that make it difficult. Maybe even the biggest. There's endless potential and feasibility for ~$25,000 energy efficient home builds, before you get into all the laws and regulations that make it next to impossible. 

 

I'd love to see, for a start, the government start selling off land it owns and doesn't need (which there is plenty of), with low cost sustainable houses built onto lots at a low-income feasible rate.

The housing has to be close to the jobs...especially for low income people.