Phx-Suns.Net

Fetterman vs Oz is an interesting Senate race. I think Fetterman will win it because he has been hammering Oz on being an out of towner rich guy from Jersey. Fetterman has much more of a blue collar image. Interesting thread.

In some states that have open primaries (where you can vote in the primary even if you are not registered as a member of that party), some Democrats are pursuing a strategy of intentionally voting for a bad or extreme GOP candidate in the hopes that this will make the general election easier for the Dem candidate to win. I worry that this strategy could really backfire. Even if many of those GOP candidates end up losing, if the Dems help facilitate the rise to power of even a single super-MAGA-extreme candidate when we could have had a more moderate one, that is a really bad thing. Play with fire and you could get burnt.

I also think it’s a bad idea. Republicans are attracted to the craziest ones. Dems are as popular as toenail fungus right now. If a magacrazy gets the GOP nomination Republicans will vote for that guy over any of the alien lizard baby eating pro communist America hating Democrats on the ballot.

I see both sides of the argument. If you know your preferred candidate is polling much better against one candidate from the other party than another, why wouldn't you want your preferred one to run against them? But you also don't want to give oxygen to the crazy.

This is another good argument for two things:

1) Ranked choice voting
2) GET RID OF THE FUCKING PARTIES ON THE BALLOTS!

Pretty devastating poll for Camp Biden. Of course I'm always skeptical of polls that pit a fixed / known quantity (Biden) against an unknown ("different candidate"). Once you insert an actual specific name there, like Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Liz Warren, etc., the number changes a lot.

Holy cow, they actually managed to pass some legislation.

I am in DC and talking with some old friends, I am getting really bad vibes. Between leftover bad habits from the Trump administration, Democratic incompetence, and the threat of a Republican controlled House launching utter nonsense investigations, we are reaching a point of utter dysfunction.

BTW, the government is soft lying to you about Paxlovid. True rebound rates are > 50% on a 5 day regimen. Utterly irresponsible and evil to insist on this -- I probably got my wife and father-in-law sick because of this guidance.

Edit -- likely that I misheard 15% as 50% -- but that is still a lot of folks going contagious again 3-12 days after they think they are clear.

I would love it if they could pass this. Anything to make it harder for Congresscritters to be corrupt and pass/tank legislation related to their own personal investments.

Children should be on that list, too.

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:22 am

Children should be on that list, too.

I would personally like that, but, I have heard a compelling argument for the other side. That is, the children of politicians are grown independent adults who have their own rights. We should generally not place restrictions on people due to the actions of their family members. And why stop at children? Why not siblings, parents, grandchildren, cousins? It starts to break down.

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 4:25 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 7:22 am

Children should be on that list, too.

I would personally like that, but, I have heard a compelling argument for the other side. That is, the children of politicians are grown independent adults who have their own rights. We should generally not place restrictions on people due to the actions of their family members. And why stop at children? Why not siblings, parents, grandchildren, cousins? It starts to break down.

Then why spouses?

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:05 pm

I see both sides of the argument. If you know your preferred candidate is polling much better against one candidate from the other party than another, why wouldn't you want your preferred one to run against them? But you also don't want to give oxygen to the crazy.

This is another good argument for two things:

1) Ranked choice voting
2) GET RID OF THE FUCKING PARTIES ON THE BALLOTS!

Been arguing this for years...take the ability away of parties to give $ to candidates and watch the fur fly...it would be biblical...AND as I said elsewhere, Citizens United and SuperPACS need killed...

Agreed about the money. I have been screaming about CU for a long time.

Vladimir_Taltos wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:02 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:05 pm

I see both sides of the argument. If you know your preferred candidate is polling much better against one candidate from the other party than another, why wouldn't you want your preferred one to run against them? But you also don't want to give oxygen to the crazy.

This is another good argument for two things:

1) Ranked choice voting
2) GET RID OF THE FUCKING PARTIES ON THE BALLOTS!

Been arguing this for years...take the ability away of parties to give $ to candidates and watch the fur fly...it would be biblical...AND as I said elsewhere, Citizens United and SuperPACS need killed...

Agree with all, but how are you going to get there?

You don’t…

virtual9mm wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 9:45 pm

Vladimir_Taltos wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:02 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:05 pm

I see both sides of the argument. If you know your preferred candidate is polling much better against one candidate from the other party than another, why wouldn't you want your preferred one to run against them? But you also don't want to give oxygen to the crazy.

This is another good argument for two things:

1) Ranked choice voting
2) GET RID OF THE FUCKING PARTIES ON THE BALLOTS!

Been arguing this for years...take the ability away of parties to give $ to candidates and watch the fur fly...it would be biblical...AND as I said elsewhere, Citizens United and SuperPACS need killed...

Agree with all, but how are you going to get there?

you need to address the illegitimacy of the Court first.

you need to address the illegitimacy of the Court first.

il·le·git·i·mate - not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.


Article 3 of the Constitution makes it authorized by law.

When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice.

Republicans refusing to vet Democrat President SCOTUS picks could be considered not in accordance with accepted standards IMO. Does that make the Supreme Court Illegitimate? Who would decide that? The Suprem Court?

And while we are on the subject, article 3 also defines treason.

Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason.

Just in case treason comes up.

As a trained sociologist, I would say that the degree of legitimacy will depend on the eyes of the observer in question.

And Indy, yes...can't do much without fixing SCOTUS first. And how can you realistically do this?

virtual9mm wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 5:47 am

And Indy, yes...can't do much without fixing SCOTUS first. And how can you realistically do this?

By packing it.