Further thoughts on the Oz/Fetterman debate last night
(1) For voters who voted early – and there are plenty of them – the debate will have no effect. That’s one of the reasons I detest widespread early voting; things come out or get clearer as time goes on, and Election Day should be the same for everyone except a few who need to cast absentee ballots.
(2) I have little doubt that many many Democrats literally do not care whether Fetterman is competent or not. The only thing that matters is whether he’s able to say “yeah” or “nay” as the party dictates. He also can be replaced, and the gubernatorial Democratic candidate Shapiro is significantly ahead in the polls, and therefore probably would get to name Fetterman’s replacement, who would therefore be a Democrat. So voting for Fetterman makes perfect sense if a person’s goal is to try to preserve the Democrat majority in the Senate.
(3) Is Fetterman being exploited, and if so by whom? Despite Fetterman’s obvious cognitive difficulties, I believe he is fully capable of making a decision about running or not running. Therefore I believe it is his decision, and no one is exploiting him in that sense. The people who are helping him prepare for a debate, and promoting him in other ways, are operating under either the hopeful idea that he’ll recover physically and mentally (I think that’s a minority view) or under the more cynical but practical point of view outlined in #2.
(4) Note this exchange:
When asked about his prior opposition to fracking and outright calls to ban it, Fetterman became a deer in the headlights.
“I do want to clarify something,” said the debate moderator directing her question at Fetterman. “You’re saying tonight that you support fracking, that you’ve always supported fracking, but there is that 2018 interview that you said, ‘I don’t support fracking at all,’ so how do you square the two?”
Silence took over the studio as Fetterman froze.
“I do support fracking,” Fetterman said. “I don’t, I don’t, I support fracking and I stand and I do support fracking.”
But if not for the moderator’s question, I submit that this moment would not have occurred. In most debates I’ve seen, the Democratic candidates aren’t called on their lies or errors by the moderators. As an example of what I’m talking about, I bring you none other than Joe Biden, circa 2008, in his debate with Sarah Palin:
Then there was what might have been the biggest head-scratcher of the night. Said Biden of the Bush administration’s supposed Middle East follies:
“When . . . along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”
Huh?
Assuming that Biden was referring to when, in 2005, American and French pressure helped the Lebanese people kick Syrian troops out of Lebanon, who ever thought NATO occupation of that deeply divided country was a good idea?
That linked NY Post editorial lists many other such moments in that debate, an encounter that occurred 15 years ago, before Biden had entered his present decline. Except for a brief detour as a result of his 1987 plagiarism, he’s gotten away with that sort of thing his whole life – as I noted yesterday.
(5) And speaking of Biden, his cognitive disabilities – and the excuses and coverup attempts for it – paved the way for something similar with Fetterman.
(6) In last night’s debate thread, there was a discussion about voting third party. I’m going to repeat the gist of one of my several comments there, which is this: a voter has a right to vote third-party or any other way that voter chooses to vote. But don’t confuse having a right to do something with whether that “something ” is a good idea or a terrible terrible one. Voting third party this year – especially in any close contest – is a terrible terrible one. For people who call themselves “conservative” or “Republican,” it is in my opinion an act of dangerous self-indulgent virtue-signaling that helps the Democrats win. It doesn’t “send a message” to anyone; all it does is act as a spoiler. Those who think otherwise live in a dreamworld. But elections and their consequences occur in the real world.
The fact that Fetterman is a viable candidate and might well win is one of many indications of how completely lost we are as a nation.
Marisa:
Agreed.
Voting third party if you are a Republican means you are effectively voting for a Democrat.
One pretty likely outcome I’m somewhat dreading in this Pennsylvania election is that it may end up being too close to call. Then we can look forward to weeks of squabbling and the usual mischief and chicanery in various critical districts that we’re all grimly familiar with now. Stuff like large tranches of ballots being suddenly “found” and odd voter roll discrepancies ect. We could be in for some stressful few weeks in November.
This is what happens when you DARE LEAVE the Democratic Party plantation; when you DARE OPPOSE those who take your support for granted and who EXPECT that support…OR ELSE…
Even if you’re a former member of the military.
Even if you’re a woman.
Even if you’re Black.
Especially if you’re Black.
Especially if you’re a Black, woman, former military member who is a dynamite candidate of PRINCIPLE and therefore a tremendous threat to the Democratic Party.
We are talking about an extremely principled and courageous person…and her courageous and dignified response to this outrageous and unlawful smear, this character assassination attempt:
“Jennifer-Ruth Green’s sexual assault records released by the Air Force to an oppo research firm”—-
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2022/10/26/jennifer-ruth-greens-sexual-assault-records-released-by-the-air-force-to-an-oppo-research-firm-n505973
H/T Instapundit.
But brain addled, utterly corrupt, truth-challenged, hate-filled Democratics? Meh…
In Pennsylvania and worried about the vote fraud but hoping anyone still not a Marxist will see what a disaster he will be voting as hard Left as anyone.
Maybe last night changed quite a few votes
Related (given the dissatisfaction, disappointment, anger—and worse—that many have with regard to the GOP):
“Will the GOP Be the Biggest Obstacle Facing a GOP Congress in 2023? Here Are Six Ways to Fix It”—
https://pjmedia.com/culture/marktapscott/2022/10/26/will-the-gop-be-the-biggest-obstacle-facing-a-gop-congress-in-2023-here-are-six-ways-to-fix-it-n1640220
H/T Instapundit.
My thinking is that the infamous margin of fraud in Pennsylvannia is probably around 3%. So for Oz to win cleanly he’ll have to cover that.
All this commenting about Fetterman’s performance is bracing to me as a traditional American, but as a Pennsylvanian I assure you all that the reason the democrats are all so sanguine about his chances is that they have assured themselves of a victory, just as they did in 2020, by “fortifying” the election. And by “fortifying,” I mean cheating, of course. They already have created or will in the fullness of time create a sufficiency of “votes” (i.e., electronic blips manufactured by electronic “voting machines”) to put Fetterman comfortably ahead of whatever vote total Oz can generate with actual, human voters. The Secretary of State for my Commonwealth has already sent out a quarter million bogus mail-in ballots. And that’s only what they have been able to suss out.
My thinking is that the infamous margin of fraud in Pennsylvannia is probably around 3%. So for Oz to win cleanly he’ll have to cover that.
That assumes the margin of fraud is fixed number. It may be more like “whatever number of votes is needed to push the D candidate over the top.
You know, stop the counting at 2am, manufacture however many D ballots are needed, then restart the counting the next day.
One of the “conspiracy theories” concerning the workings of the dominion voting machines in the battleground states in 2020 was that any vote for a third-party candidate was correctly tabulated for that candidate, but automatically triggered another vote to be registered for Biden. It was supposedly a clever way to hide any obvious shenanigans because there would be no dramatic change in third party votes cast compared to prior years. However, if true, any third party vote cast could in fact result in a direct vote cast for the democrat.
“It doesn’t “send a message” to anyone; all it does is act as a spoiler.”
Voting for the lesser evil always gets you evil. No one is entitled to someone’s vote. Political support has to be earned. You don’t HAVE to vote for anyone.
Black Americans have been slavishly “voting Blue no matter who” for generations. How has that worked out for them?
Mike
“Will anyone switch their vote from Fetterman to Oz because Fetterman struggled to speak in the debate last night?”
“I think not. What’s overwhelmingly important is which party gets the majority in the Senate, and every single Senate race could be the one that shifts the power one way or the other. All Fetterman needed to do was not seem dangerously incompetent, and he crossed that low bar. The rest is chitter-chatter. Good night!”— Ann Althouse
She is correct, of course. Democrats understand the long game. Incremental gains over time create great transformational moments.
Dr. Oz needs to win by the margin greater than the election cheating. That is troubling, since it appears Pennsylvania did nothing to strengthen the integrity of their voting, and their appeared to be close to zero integrity in certain voting districts.
Brian E:
I disagree with Althouse. Of course some people will switch their votes. There are plenty of Independents who aren’t really affiliated with one party or other and are low information voters who simply didn’t realize how handicapped Fetterman is. No loyal Democrat will switch, of course. The real question is whether there are enough Independents who will switch, enough to make a difference. That is unknown, and it really depends on how close the race is at the moment. The other huge question is, of course, whether the Democrats will be able to pull a significant enough amount of fraud to overcome any margin Oz might gain. It is highly important for them to win this race and I believe they will pull out all the stops to do so.
MBunge:
You of course can vote as you wish; you have every right to do so, as does everyone. Nothing anyone in this thread has said indicates otherwise, so it’s a red herring to keep acting as though anyone is saying you HAVE to vote for anyone.
And I have a right to tell you my opinion about your vote. I have already made it clear what I think. But I’ll add that saying that “voting for the lesser evil always gets you evil” is another pointless point. The person saying “vote for the lesser evil” is already conceding evil. But not all “‘evils” are equal. A lesser evil is a lesser evil, and I’ll take it any day over a greater one. It seems completely obvious to me that those who don’t understand that live in dangerous absolutist dreamworld.
Neo, I hope you’re right. I was only thinking of Democrats.
It is the ultimate hubris of Libertarians who love, love, love to use the “lesser of two evils is still evil” line. All humans are flawed, sinful, ignorant and often stupid — including Libertarians. To claim that they alone of all political parties are somehow virtuous and without sin is simply stupid and disgusting.
No one can govern without compromise. Actually electing a Libertarian would be completely and utterly pointless, if they weren’t capable of the essence of politics.
So, claiming to be more moral by refusing to participate in a critically important election is moral masturbation. Period. Exclamation Point. Nothing moral about it. Just morally defective delusion.
I, too, disagree with Althouse.
IMO this debate will cause a substantial number of independent voters to swing toward Oz. I think there are two reasons: The first is the dishonesty of the PA Democrat party literally foisting on voters an incapacitated candidate. What I saw in reviewing the clips was not just a verbal/auditory problem, but seems to me to be a reasoning and comprehension problem as well.
The second concern is that voters now know that Fetterman’s purpose is not to represent Pennsylvanians in the Senate (he’s not capable), but is simply a progressive Democrat partisan vote* (Briahna Joy Gray, Robby Soave’s wife, actually spoke to this on the air). Other critics reference the fact that PA Dems could have replaced Fetterman with Connor Lamb, but he was considered too moderate.
Jonathan Turley (Prof.Law, George Washington Univ.) notes in his observations that with Fetterman’s atrocious absentee record as both mayor and lieutenant governor that it now seems clear that he neither can, not really intends to, represent PA in the Senate.
Sorry for no citations but all of the comments I read have kind of merged in to one.
*I recently read someone mention that changing the Senate from state-appointed to popularly elected senators changed the makeup of the Senate from a body intended to be the States’ representatives to Washington to a body which represents Washington to the States. This may not very far from the truth.
Reading through this thread piqued a question in my mind: is it possible some or many pollsters routinely downplay Republican percentages to cover for the fraud that they expect from the Democrats? Cynical, I know, but just possible?
“No one can govern without compromise. Actually electing a Libertarian would be completely and utterly pointless, if they weren’t capable of the essence of politics.” [Stan @ 5:38]
Although I am concerned that there might very well be enough fraud to push Fetterman over the top, I also have no doubt that Fetterman’s disastrous performance hurt him very badly.
Of course most Democrats aren’t concerned that Fetterman isn’t up to the job — he is a reliable supporter of whatever the Democrat agenda is and that is enough for them. If his health deteriorates too badly he can always be replaced. But there are enough voters out there who do actually care if their Senator is competent to make a difference.
If the Fetterman camp just came right out and said “Look, John isn’t capable of actually doing the job but we have people to tell him what to do so everything will be OK” Would he still win? I don’t think so. They needed to maintain the fiction that he is only suffering from minor “auditory issues” that will be cleared up in a few months to convince skeptical voters. That fiction has now been exposed for all to see.
I know betting markets aren’t perfect predictors of election outcomes, but they shifted dramatically in Oz’s favor last night. You can make quite a bit of money If you bet on Fetterman now.
Fetterman obviously sustained significant brain injury from his stroke.
At this point in time, he should be in regular, if not intensive, neuro specific therapy to optimize his chances of maximum recovery.
He also should be able to rest and sleep–two things that contribute significantly to neuro repair–pretty much at will, as well as optimize his nutrition and hydration.
Basically, the exact OPPOSITE of life on the campaign trail.
I am utterly disgusted by the Ds using him–and Biden–so heartlessly.
The only thing more disgusting their wives allowing this to happen.
I going to predict that the longer it takes to count the votes the more certain that Fetterman will win the election. I’m basing this on my analysis of Biden/Trump voting in 2020. At the time, I analyzed the election data I downloaded from the NYT website.
At 10 pm on 11/3 they were tied with about half a million votes each. By noon on 11/4 Trump was ahead by half a million votes and pulling away. Suddenly, the rate at which Trump accumulated votes dropped by almost a factor of 10 while Biden’s rate was only cut in half. This allowed Biden to catch up to Trump at noon 11/6, which was two(!) days after Trump’s maximum lead. Biden went on to win PA by a few thousand votes.
Watch for delayed reporting as a sure sign of the crooked fix.
If elected, it is not Fetterman who the party plans to serve in the Senate but his wife Gisele. Doddering Joe gave the game away.
“For Democrats, it’s party uber alles; and for them, canceling out a Joe Manchin with a great, mentally diseased ape like John Fetterman, who began his debate by saying “good night”, is a feature, not a bug.”
https://jeffgoldstein.substack.com/p/fettermy-good-god-man
IMO this debate will cause a substantial number of independent voters to swing toward Oz. I think there are two reasons: The first is the dishonesty of the PA Democrat party literally foisting on voters an incapacitated candidate….
The second concern is that voters now know that Fetterman’s purpose is not to represent Pennsylvanians in the Senate (he’s not capable), but is simply a progressive Democrat partisan vote…
T:
Excellent points, well-put.
Not everyone who votes Democrat is a Yellow Dog Democrat, that is someone who would vote for a “yaller dog” as long as it ran as a Democrat.
Amusingly, in the 1990s, the term, Blue Dog Democrat, emerged, which was a Yellow Dog Democrat who had been strangled “blue” by leftist Democrats.
Just about all the Blue Dogs died out after voting for Obamacare. We seem to be left with Red Dog Democrats.
Of which John Fetterman provides a splendid example.
Yes, Lee at 6:20 p.m. Sitting with my daughter the speech and language professor, who has seen clips of the debate. Fetterman has receptive and expressive aphasia, resulting from damage to two areas of the brain. At this point, it is not possible to predict whether he will fully recover. Intensive rehabilitation would be a whole lot more constructive for him than a Senate campaign and, if he wins, a demanding job.
I agree with Neo re third party voting. If you oppose the Democrats, but vote third party for whatever reason, you own the Democrat destruction of our country.
neo – I don’t think that you account for the possibility that other people might weigh the costs and benefits differently than you do.
Democratic control is bad. Very bad. Agreed. I mentioned in an earlier post that we all have limits of what or who we will vote for and that mine have expanded since 2016. I would vote for Hershel Walker even though I find him repugnant. Frankly, if a Republican Senate candidate pulled the same stunt that Fetterman and his team have pulled, I would probably vote for that hypothetical Republican to keep Democrats from controlling the Senate. (I suspect I’m not alone, which is why we shouldn’t get too excited about the Fetterman/Oz debate.)
But there are costs to voting for bad or poorly-suited candidates. For example, Trump will never, ever be able to form a lasting governing majority. He’s never won a majority of the vote in any contested election and even if he managed to cobble together 51% in 2024, that would dissipate quickly as his lack of discipline and habit of stepping on his own message come to the forefront. Also, most of Trump’s policy initiatives during his first term were half-baked and self-defeating – outside of SC picks, which he more or less outsourced to the Federalist Socieity (not that I have any problem with that). He’s promised to appoint more loyalists in a second Trump administration, which will likely make the problems that he had in his first administration worse. (As between Trump lackeys and embedded career bureaucrats, the bureaucrats are going win probably 8 or 9 times out of 10.) All-in-all, a reasonable conservative voter could conclude that the most likely result of a second Trump presidency would be a limited set of policy victories followed by complete Democrat control of government in 2028, which would entail the elimination of the filibuster, packing of the Supreme Court, and all of the bad things that we want to prevent. (Heck, Trump would probably again push for the elimination of the filibuster himself, which would set the table nicely for Democrats in 2029.)
Given that, and especially if Republicans have a good year in the Senate and House in 2022, a reasonable conservative voter could conclude that, if Trump is the nominee, the least bad, lesser of two evil options in 2024 would be to vote third party and defeat Trump while helping Republicans hold at least one house of Congress, preferable the Senate, which is very favorable to Republicans in 2024.
You can make similar cases for other offices. How about Mastriano in Pennsylvania? He’s promised not to certify the 2024 election in Pennsylvania unless the Republican wins. What if he really follows through on that? What if Biden or Harris or whoever Ds put up in 2024 carries PA by 100,000 votes or so (which is very possible given PA history) and Gov. Mastriano declines the certify the results, thereby triggering a Constitutional crisis? I don’t know if Mastriano would actually follow through on his promise, but the bad blood between Rs and Ds over election administration in PA is real and ugly. He just might. You might say that a court would reverse Mastriano’s refusal to certify. You would probably be right, but do you really want that precedent to exist? Imagine the mischief that Democrats could do with that precedent. All of that is a cost, and it is a cost that Mastriano voters need to consider.
My point is that if you want to say that any conservative who doesn’t vote for awful Republican candidates is a fool, you need to show more than the awfulness of Democrats. I think we all agree on the awfulness of Democrats. The other side of the ledger can get pretty ugly too and it can’t be ignored.
Someone has OMB living rent free.
“Make America a Little Better Maybe,” Bauxite?
om seems to think that “OMB” is some kind of magic incantation that eliminates the need to consider other arguments.
One might characterize om’s position to be “keep America from getting much worse, for two or four years, and than watch it go over the cliff faster and more permanently.”
om seems to think that “OMB” is some kind of magic incantation that eliminates the need to consider other arguments.
You might meet him halfway by avoiding contrived Gish Gallops.
Good grief if the ballots are verifiable there is no problem alito raised the point in october they did so they could destroy the country capisce entiende whatevef the Russian word is
I dock matriano 50 demerits for enabling this loophole
This was the whole reason thar cloward and piven cooked up motor voter and election month
Bauxite.
Nothing even remotely reasonable about your comment. The notion that it would be best for the GOP if Biden were re-elected in a race against Trump is so stupid that even you can’t really believe it. Total insanity.
Just stop. The more you explain, the less sense it makes.
Related:
‘NBC’s Dasha Burns on Fetterman’s Debate: ‘It was Very Similar to the Conversation That We Had’ ;
‘ “And of course, we posted the entire interview online as well after we conducted that so folks can go back and look. He is clearly still struggling with some of those issues.” ‘—
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/10/nbcs-dasha-burns-on-fettermans-debate-it-was-very-similar-to-the-conversation-that-we-had/
“…were re-elected…”(!!)
Funny! (He lost the first time around…. Yes, I know, I know…)
GOP trying to tighten things up for the upcoming round(s)…
“Texas election integrity task forces sent to Houston area to help prevent fraud;
“Inspectors from the Texas Secretary of State and AG’s Election Integrity Team have been sent to Harris County, which is mostly Houston, to observe and monitor voting processes.”—
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/texas-election-integrity-task-forces-sent-harris-county-ensure
“Wisconsin judge refuses to allow mail-in ballots with partial addresses to be counted…”—
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/wisconsin-judge-rejects-bid-allow-partial-addresses-mail-ballots
“GOP notches election law wins, Arizona Dem elections chief Hobbs flubs ballot as midterms near;
“Courts rule in Republicans’ favor on poll challengers in Michigan, hand count in Nevada, absentee voting in New York.”—
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/election-lawsuits-court-rulings-and-mistakes-made-heading-midterms
And we’ll conclude with this gem:
“Following even the most basic logic, voting that isn’t done in person is less secure than in-person voting. That’s why many countries ban it.;
“So when you say that the vote with the most mail-in ballots ever was also “the most secure in history”, it confirms that you are a liar.”—
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1585439747316629504?cxt=HHwWgIC–ZrDzoAsAAAA
Keep the faith…and fight like hell!
“High-profile Dems fight for political survival against surging Republicans in ‘safe’ blue states;
“Democratic incumbents locked in unexpectedly tight races in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada and even, according to some polls, in New Mexico, New York and Minnesota.”—
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/democrats-losing-ground-michigan-oregon-wisconsin-nevada-new-mexico
File under: “Distrust…and VERIFY”
My point is that there is a reasonable argument for voting third party. (FWIW, I’m not sure I’m persuaded by that argument. I hope Trump isn’t the nominee so I don’t have to consider it.) Notably, no one has actually addressed that argument.
Stated another way, here we are two years after Trump left office. Democrats completely control the federal government. The only things that prevented Democrats from abolishing the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, adding multiple new states the union, and so on were the votes of Sens. Manchin and Sinema, neither of whom is likely to be in office for long.
So, if you want Trump in 2024, why do you think that the second time around would be any different?
And if a conservative believes that a second Trump administration is likely to end the same way as the first one, this time without Manchin and Sinema to save the day, isn’t it rational to try to prevent that result?
Bauxite:
Just try for once to not bring Trump into a thought you express in a comment. It isn’t all about him.
Third party? Just vote Democrat and stop the fan dance.
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/401571.php
Another thought Bauxite. There is an election in less than two weeks: Manchin and Sinema may not be crucial after that. Although Senator McTurtle may still be a problem even if Republicans control both houses. Better that problem than the one we now.
Third party? Just vote Democrat and stop the fan dance.
The problem has been for nine decades that there is not the social or cultural basis for a multiparty system. The various and sundry vectors which influence political preferences are sufficiently correlated that the default setting is two parties. The Libertarian Party is an abiding element, but they’ve only been competitors in Alaska (which as four competitive parties). The old Socialist Party was seldom competitive outside of Wisconsin. (Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota each had a competitive one-state party as well).
I should note that ranked-choice voting is a satisfactory way of processing the preferences of those inclined toward 3d parties.
So, if you want Trump in 2024, why do you think that the second time around would be any different?
Your alternative would be sterling candidates like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
Art Deco – That sill doesn’t address my argument. George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain are not running in 2024.
Bauxite
That is very far from a reasonable argument. The discussion isn’t about whether Trump should be the 2024 nominee – from previous threads, I think the majority opinion is that there are better options for the nomination, such as DeSantis. The discussion is about whether to vote for Trump if he IS the nominee, and it is quite obvious that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for another Democrat president. Obviously far worse in every way. Counting on holding at least one branch of Congress is also a big gamble. Each person can only vote for his or her own representative to the House (and perhaps senator if it happens to be the right year), and at least if a Republican is president with a Democrat Congress, he or she can block what they do.
And a second Trump term would of course end differently, either better or worse. The “Resistance” probably wouldn’t be as successful with another Russiagate type of action, for starters; much of the public would recognize it for what it is. Trump is a bit more savvy about government, as well.
Indeed furthermore romney w mcain if he were alive have shown they are fine with the destruction of every last foundation of this country
Bauxite:
Art Deco wrote “candidates LIKE” those listed. So your response to him makes no sense.
They watched whilr cities butnef statues toppled and were at best silent if not complicit
neo – You make a lot of assumptions.
The Resistance wouldn’t get away with another Russiagate? Why not? They got away with the last one. Roughly half the public will believe literally any allegation against Trump and another significant chunk won’t dedicate the time necessary to understand that the whole thing will be bunk.
Trump understands government better? Maybe, but there is no indication of that. His last acts in office included bungling the COVID response PR and backing the hair-brained idea that the VP could reject electoral votes.
Maybe you’re right and a second Trump term would be different. But the argument here is about whether a Republican who votes third party is a fool or a progressive tool. It is not at all unreasonable for a conservative to conclude that a second Trump administration is not likely to end any better than the first. Such a conservative is not a fool or a progressive tool.
(And which possible 2024 candidates are “like” Bush, Romney, and McCain?)
So your response to him makes no sense.
The point is to parry and project, not to make sense.
(And which possible 2024 candidates are “like” Bush, Romney, and McCain?)
An inane question, as no one of any description is on the radar screen except Trump and deSantis.
The Fredocon Donorist Party should have no trouble throwing up potential candidates. There were 17 Republican candidates in 2016, as often as not conventional. The problem they will have is finding someone who won’t just take the donors’ money and make a bonfire with it, as did Jeb! Bush. That possibility may inhibit most of them from running.
NeverTrump is a Capitol Hill, K Street, Acela corridor phenomenon, one propped up with liberal money. It has no popular analogue. Trump’s approval ratings among self-identified Republicans in 2019 were the equal of George W Bush’s at the beginning of 2004, Ronald Reagan’s in 1984, and Richard Nixon’s in 1972.
So, you may find someone in 2024 doing what Addison Mitchell McConnell wants them to do: fellate donors off stage, promote income tax cuts, private accounts for Social Security, amnesty for illegal aliens, otiose responses on every culture war question, and bogus ‘free trade’ treaties on stage. Whoever they rotate in to replace you will be talking him up when the time comes.
last acts in office included bungling the COVID response PR
Tacking ‘PR’ on the end is a weasel move.
Condensed, essential Bauxite:
“I’m very concerned, vote third party, or vote Democrat.”
Daniel Henninger at WSJ wrote loud and clear on the debate:
___________________________________
He went into this debate in a virtual polling tie with Mr. Oz. The debate ended with Mr. Oz delivering a strong, comprehensive closing statement, which heightened the hour-long contrast with Mr. Fetterman’s difficult performance. It’s now likely the Republicans will hold the Pennsylvania seat and win control of the Senate. Withholding crucial information from voters is a time bomb. This one detonated.
One thing the debate made starkly clear is the awful consequences of super-early voting laws. More than a half million people in Pennsylvania have voted already. Second thoughts? Forget it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/midterms-october-surprise-john-fetterman-pennsylvania-oz-fracking-stroke-fitness-debate-new-york-hochul-zeldin-crime-11666814874
“…bungling the COVID response…”
(I’ll cut off the quote right here.)
Leaving aside “WARP SPEED”…had Fauci not essentially nipped Trump’s Hydrochloroquine proposal in the bud (true, Trump did not mention “plus zinc” and/or “plus Azithromycin”, IOW Z-Pack, but that would have inevitably come along—e.g., Dr. Zelenko and his “Doctrine”, supported by empirical results—HAD Trump’s original proposal not been IMMEDIATELY SQUELCHED by the usual suspects); and had the media, including the mainstream science media, not utterly ridiculed the concept—much as they later utterly ridiculed another perhaps even more efective treatment, Ivermectin—the result would have been FAR DIFFERENT than the massive death, suffering, dread, confusion, chaos and despair that as it turns out HAD TO BE THE DESIRED RESULT of Fauci et al. AND the Democratic party. (Only relatively recently—with Dr. Brix’s admission that they were making things up as they went along (flying by the seat of their pants) confirmed by Dr. Walensky’s blatantly latent avowals, and reinforced by the curious and non-sensical admissions of THAT giggly Pfizer representative; all this together with the HISTORY of using—abusing—that absurd mantra of “Follow the Science” (together with “But the Science Changes!”) to publicly—globally—repudiate and humiliate any and every attempt/proposal to introduce sanity, experience and responsibility into the therapeutic discussion—have we been able to determine just how venal, culpable, murderous—just how DESTRUCTIVE—the NARRATIVE and the cabal promoting it 24/7 have been, though there indications and warnings of this almost from the very beginning, warnings once again rejected, ridiculed, stomped on, denigrated…along with those individuals—MANY OF THEM RESPECTED EPIDEMIOLOGISTS—who made those warnings and who offered different pathways forward.)
So WHY DID the Democrats want more death, suffering, dread, confusion, chaos and despair?
And…why DO they continue to want more death, suffering, dread, confusion, chaos and despair?
Hint: This isn’t rocket science.
…But TRUMP…and his manner…and his PR…and his personality…and his inexperience….
File under: “I AM THE MIGHT AND ALL_POWERFUL OZ”: The JUGGERNAUT OF DESTRUCTION that the Democratic Party has become…so as to achieve TOTAL POWER…but which must be covered up and hidden—and political opponent blamed, tarred, smeared, slandered and tarnished by Democratic Party and Media MISDIRECTION and LIES—so that no one really grasps the horrendous extent of it… BUT the curtain IS being pulled back. In spite of everything…
Oops…
Should be “…MIGHTY AND ALL-POWERFUL…”
“…most of Trump’s policy initiatives during his first term were half-baked and self-defeating – outside of SC picks, which he more or less outsourced to the Federalist Socieity (not that I have any problem with that).”— Bauxite
Talking about Trump is just a distraction from the issues now, but this statement is just wrong.
1. Re-negotiating NAFTA
2. Trade deal with China
3. Remain in Mexico Policy
4. Secure border wall
5. Abraham Accords
6. Moving embassy to Jerusalem
7. Energy independence
8. Taking out Soleimani
9. Syria policy that benefitted Kurds, while eliminating ISIS
10. Calling out EU countries for shirking their responsibility to NATO
Every one of these produced outrage and wails that the world would end by the leftists and MSM. All were good for US.
Your hatred of Trump appears to be a mental condition.
Bauxite:
I make no assumptions about Russiagate. What part of the word “probably” do you not understand in the phrase “probably wouldn’t be as successful”?
You are the one making assumptions.
As you did when you wrote that McCain et al aren’t running in 2024. No one said they would be running, so your remark was absurd. Now you ask who is like them, who might run? Plenty of people. Are you kidding? The answer is: any GOP office-holder who isn’t a MAGA Republican and presents as more moderate than that, which is a pretty long list.
Further WRT to the Fetterman fiasco—I mean “SUCCESS”—a comprehensive must-read post/complilation from Ed Driscoll that describes (for the gazillionth time) the Leftist Media Modus Operandi of deceit, denial and lying to obfuscate and conceal the truth…even as it intends—desperately—to misdirect the reader…
(The advantage here is that it’s all out there in the open…and that this particularly steaming cow-pie is freshly fallen…)
https://instapundit.com/550545/
“Ah, how can we perfume thee, pig? Let us count the ways…”
trump wanted the most effective and speedy treatment, which had proven it’s worth, over 60 years, dr. simone gold was one who had shown results, they locked her up, for trying to redress grievances,
cuomo and his witchdoctor, whose brother actually injected chlorine into his system, sent tens of thousands of infected back into the nursing home denied the use of hospital ships, et al, other murder governors did the same, while the press labeled the work of kemp and desantis and others, as human sacrifice, but they needed their blood price, to cover the fraud, and offering to any babylonian deity,
@ huxley in re WSJ “One thing the debate made starkly clear is the awful consequences of super-early voting laws. More than a half million people in Pennsylvania have voted already. Second thoughts? Forget it.”
For the Democrats, this is a feature not a bug.
Mostly because it appears that more Ds than Rs vote early.
Thus, so long as their candidate “looks good” by the beginning of the voting period, they can coast the rest of the way; IOW, it insulates their party against “October surprises” by the Republicans (should any be forthcoming; so far, the “surprises” have been own-goals by the Dems).
One would think that Republicans ought to have the same benefits, but politics doesn’t work that way in America because of the media, which overwhelmingly presents the D as better than reality, and the R as worse (when they aren’t flat out lying).
As demonstrated in this election cycle, R’s don’t start pulling ahead until the final month, mostly because it takes so long to get momentum rolling against the weight of the media anchor-chains.