Too early to think about 2022?

[El Guapo]

I think messing with Meijer's race is a bad idea, precisely because we're going to be asking Republicans in the years to come to do the right thing in the face of authoritarianism rising in the GOP, and messing with one of only 10 Republicans to vote for impeachment is only going to make that pitch harder.

+1

This is exactly why this is infinitely stupid. We should be encouraging every sane Republican, not punishing them for doing the right thing.

But at the same time, how would you feel if Meijer gets reelected and Republicans take the House by a single seat?

[Kraken]

Can I infer that Republicans are backing progressive ("radical left") Democrats over their more moderate opponents, even though they'd prefer a D caucus full of Manchinemas? This is a tactic where I'd expect both-siderism to be true.

[Kurth]

So in general I think that people are too dismissive of "boost the crank candidate in the opposing party's primary" as a tactic. Not that it's always a great idea, but Claire McCaskill got like an extra 12 years as a Democratic senator from Missouri precisely because she played in the GOP primary field.

That said, I think messing with Meijer's race is a bad idea, precisely because we're going to be asking Republicans in the years to come to do the right thing in the face of authoritarianism rising in the GOP, and messing with one of only 10 Republicans to vote for impeachment is only going to make that pitch harder.

"Boost the crank candidate in the opposing party's primary" is a bullshit tactic that renders our political process into a stupid fucking tribal game. It's the kind of thing my brother-in-law used to love to advocate for on the GOP side. A big sports fan, to him, politics was just an extension of sports. Anything bad for the other team was automatically good for his. Ends/means analysis was simple for him, until Trump tried his coup and Jan 6 happened and he realized this isn't just a game and he quit the GOP.

I submit that the ends/means analysis here is actually very simple: Between two candidates, one who is MAGA and one who voted to impeach Trump, you do NOT boost the MAGA one. And I'd argue that it's not just in this case.

This may sound hopelessly naive (it may be), but politics should be more than just a game. Beating the other side is not the point: Good governance is. Of course, that's an impossible notion for people who believe that good governance can only possibly be the result of beating the other side. It's impossible for people who demand a freaking purity test from their candidates.

I don't know a lot about Peter Meijer, but I know he voted to impeach Trump, he voted to certify the election, and he gets a D from Conservative Review's "Liberty Score" grading system . Even if he wouldn't necessarily be your top choice to win the seat, is it crazy to think that -- big picture -- there's a serious potential systemic gain from having someone like him in Congress?

But, no, our Democratic leadership feels otherwise. Better for democracy to try to get a MAGA Trumper on the ballot who they think will be easier to beat, because, of course, winning is all that matters.

Gibbs is up 51/49 over Meijer right now with 41% of the vote in. I don't think a projection has been made yet, but if Gibbs wins and actually mounts a serious challenge, I may be done with all this shit.

[Kurth]

I think messing with Meijer's race is a bad idea, precisely because we're going to be asking Republicans in the years to come to do the right thing in the face of authoritarianism rising in the GOP, and messing with one of only 10 Republicans to vote for impeachment is only going to make that pitch harder.

+1

This is exactly why this is infinitely stupid. We should be encouraging every sane Republican, not punishing them for doing the right thing.

But at the same time, how would you feel if Meijer gets reelected and Republicans take the House by a single seat?

[Pyperkub]

Can I infer that Republicans are backing progressive ("radical left") Democrats over their more moderate opponents, even though they'd prefer a D caucus full of Manchinemas? This is a tactic where I'd expect both-siderism to be true.

Yes. They also run fake candidates.

[Kraken]

So in general I think that people are too dismissive of "boost the crank candidate in the opposing party's primary" as a tactic. Not that it's always a great idea, but Claire McCaskill got like an extra 12 years as a Democratic senator from Missouri precisely because she played in the GOP primary field.

That said, I think messing with Meijer's race is a bad idea, precisely because we're going to be asking Republicans in the years to come to do the right thing in the face of authoritarianism rising in the GOP, and messing with one of only 10 Republicans to vote for impeachment is only going to make that pitch harder.

"Boost the crank candidate in the opposing party's primary" is a bullshit tactic that renders our political process into a stupid fucking tribal game. It's the kind of thing my brother-in-law used to love to advocate for on the GOP side. A big sports fan, to him, politics was just an extension of sports. Anything bad for the other team was automatically good for his. Ends/means analysis was simple for him, until Trump tried his coup and Jan 6 happened and he realized this isn't just a game and he quit the GOP.

I submit that the ends/means analysis here is actually very simple: Between two candidates, one who is MAGA and one who voted to impeach Trump, you do NOT boost the MAGA one. And I'd argue that it's not just in this case.

This may sound hopelessly naive (it may be), but politics should be more than just a game. Beating the other side is not the point: Good governance is. Of course, that's an impossible notion for people who believe that good governance can only possibly be the result of beating the other side. It's impossible for people who demand a freaking purity test from their candidates.

I don't know a lot about Peter Meijer, but I know he voted to impeach Trump, he voted to certify the election, and he gets a D from Conservative Review's "Liberty Score" grading system . Even if he wouldn't necessarily be your top choice to win the seat, is it crazy to think that -- big picture -- there's a serious potential systemic gain from having someone like him in Congress?

But, no, our Democratic leadership feels otherwise. Better for democracy to try to get a MAGA Trumper on the ballot who they think will be easier to beat, because, of course, winning is all that matters.

Gibbs is up 51/49 over Meijer right now with 41% of the vote in. I don't think a projection has been made yet, but if Gibbs wins and actually mounts a serious challenge, I may be done with all this shit.

Well said. West Michigan is one of those places that tends to prefer any R to any D. Meijer is about as liberal as they're going to go.

[Zarathud]

Republicans have changed the rules so if they have 50%, they will not pass legislation unless it can pass with only Republican votes. The Democrats will still try for bipartisanship.

A moderate Republican is only useful if Democrats have control. So you have to play for that result over anything else.

[gbasden]

I think messing with Meijer's race is a bad idea, precisely because we're going to be asking Republicans in the years to come to do the right thing in the face of authoritarianism rising in the GOP, and messing with one of only 10 Republicans to vote for impeachment is only going to make that pitch harder.

+1

This is exactly why this is infinitely stupid. We should be encouraging every sane Republican, not punishing them for doing the right thing.

But at the same time, how would you feel if Meijer gets reelected and Republicans take the House by a single seat?

I'd feel awful. But we need everybody we can get to fight against this encroaching fascism, and the next time this happens we are even less likely to get the help of a Kinzinger or a Cheney.

[malchior]

Gibbs narrowly won. NPR

Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, has narrowly lost his Republican primary to Trump-backed conservative challenger John Gibbs, according to a race call by The Associated Press.

The loss for Meijer is a boost for Trump as he continues endorsing primary challenges to Republican Senate and House members who disagree with his false narrative that the 2020 election was fraudulent.

[LordMortis]

Gibbs narrowly won. NPR

Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, has narrowly lost his Republican primary to Trump-backed conservative challenger John Gibbs, according to a race call by The Associated Press.

The loss for Meijer is a boost for Trump as he continues endorsing primary challenges to Republican Senate and House members who disagree with his false narrative that the 2020 election was fraudulent.

I don't know if I'm surprised or not, so I guess I'm not. Trump election denying is strong here. We've got issues in this state. That said Meijer had a lot of in state power/money supporting him and he's a vet who has proven himself to have scruples. The name alone is ubiquitous here. Their family are the Waltons of Michigan. But the GOP here is... bad...

To give you an idea, also NPR...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/c ... or-primary

Voter Mark Orsinger of Grand Rapids said he decided to cast his ballot for Dixon after Trump’s endorsement.

“I didn’t know Tudor until Trump mentioned her,” Orsinger said. “She seems like an OK person. I only know her from 20 seconds of a commercial.”

That person also likely vote for their rep based solely on Trump.

[malchior]

A moderate Republican is only useful if Democrats have control. So you have to play for that result over anything else.

This is not the only way to look at it. Not everything is about passing legislation. He voted for impeaching Trump and was for intents and purposes a gettable legislation vote.

More so you don't improve the current dire situation by helping the enemy purge their marginal members. This is the type of short-sighted thinking that got us here. This lack of a strategic view and reasonable risk management is partly why the Democratic party is absorbing some of the biggest "political" defeats this system has seen in 50 years.

[stessier]

I can't find a clip, but again from The West Wing (Josh is the Deputy Chief of Staff working with Landis, a moderate Republican, on a bill to clean up Baltimore Harbor):

LANDIS
What? The Democrats want a tax on clams?

JOSH
It's not the Democrats this time, it's the Republicans. It's not going
to happen.

LANDIS
What do you mean?

JOSH
It's not going to get out of Committee. The White House is going to have to
pull its
support, but there's room in the EPA budget, room in the interior budget.

LANDIS
Room for everything but my name?

JOSH
Yeah.

LANDIS
You guys are really going to go after the seat next time, huh?

JOSH
So are the Republicans, Tom. You're probably going to have a primary challenge.

LANDIS
You know, if you keep squeezing out the liberal Republican and the conservative
Democrats...

JOSH
That's who's beatable.

LANDIS
If I'm running scared, I run to the right. That's where the money is.

JOSH
This is something that was never in my lap the right way.

LANDIS
You know, a friend of mine's a comedian, and he was doing a standup here
in town.
A bunch of people from the German consulate came down to see him, and they came
backstage afterwards, and they said to him, "How come we don't have anyone
as funny
as you back home?" And my friend said, "Because you killed them all."

JOSH
Well, that's a bit of an overstatement... isn't it?

LANDIS
Maybe.

[Kurth]

Gibbs narrowly won. NPR

Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, has narrowly lost his Republican primary to Trump-backed conservative challenger John Gibbs, according to a race call by The Associated Press.

The loss for Meijer is a boost for Trump as he continues endorsing primary challenges to Republican Senate and House members who disagree with his false narrative that the 2020 election was fraudulent.

I don't know if I'm surprised or not, so I guess I'm not. Trump election denying is strong here. We've got issues in this state. That said Meijer had a lot of in state power/money supporting him and he's a vet who has proven himself to have scruples. The name alone is ubiquitous here. Their family are the Waltons of Michigan. But the GOP here is... bad...

To give you an idea, also NPR...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/c ... or-primary

Voter Mark Orsinger of Grand Rapids said he decided to cast his ballot for Dixon after Trump’s endorsement.

“I didn’t know Tudor until Trump mentioned her,” Orsinger said. “She seems like an OK person. I only know her from 20 seconds of a commercial.”

That person also likely vote for their rep based solely on Trump.

You should definitely NOT be surprised. Gibbs spent next to nothing on this race. He had no fundraising to speak of. Trump endorsed him strongly, but we all know by now that that endorsement comes with no money because . . . Trump.

The Dems spent $300K to get Gibbs on the ballot. If they don’t win that seat, Democratic leadership heads (starting with that douchebag Patrick Maloney) need to roll.

[El Guapo]

So my general view on this stuff is:

(1) I don't think it's crazy in general to boost beatable candidates in GOP primaries, because I have almost no faith in the GOP as an institution or on GOP moderates. There's almost no evidence that the GOP will stand up to Trump in a situation where it matters. Given that, you can definitely make the argument that the responsible thing is to maximize the odds that Democrats control the institutions of power, including the House.

(2) That said, the downside is obvious, that some percentage of those GOP cranks will go on to win in the general and further poison the system. I don't dismiss that as a real downside, but it's only part of the equation - it's a fair question as to whether one should be willing to trade a 10% higher chance of the Democrats controlling the House in exchange for a few more crank GOP officials (to make up numbers)

(3) Regardless I would have made an exception and boosted Meijer, given the unique optics and significance of the Trump impeachment vote (boosting Gibbs obviously created a uniquely bad messaging problem, whereas the benefit of one more Democratic House seat isn't important enough to counter-balance that.

[Kurth]

My old Congressman from MA gets it:

[Pyperkub]

This article says it well

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/what- ... otect-good

Hit pause here for a second: Peter Meijer says that Democrats opportunistically running a negative ad that accurately described his opponent was more nauseating than members of his own party threatening him with violence and death.

[LordMortis]

I don't get the blue endgame here by throwing money at Gibbs. Do they think GR was going viably turn blue? It makes no sense to me.

[gilraen]

Do they think GR was going viably turn blue? It makes no sense to me.

Apparently with the legislative lines redrawn for this upcoming election, the district is more of a toss-up.

[malchior]

Do they think GR was going viably turn blue? It makes no sense to me.

Apparently with the legislative lines redrawn for this upcoming election, the district is more of a toss-up.

Maybe it will be a toss up but it also is looking like a red wave year.

[El Guapo]

Do they think GR was going viably turn blue? It makes no sense to me.

Apparently with the legislative lines redrawn for this upcoming election, the district is more of a toss-up.

Maybe it will be a toss up but it also is looking like a red wave year.

Apparently a toss up is understating it, since the district is now apparently Biden +8 by the 2020 vote. So FWIW Cook Political report puts the race at Lean Democrat with Gibbs as the nominee (whereas it would have been Lean Republican with Meijer).

[Kurth]

This article says it well

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/what- ... otect-good

Hit pause here for a second: Peter Meijer says that Democrats opportunistically running a negative ad that accurately described his opponent was more nauseating than members of his own party threatening him with violence and death.

I think that's a terrible, terrible take. And it really makes me question what the Bulwark is actually about.

Meijer's point is that as horrible as the GOP MAGAts are that are threatening him, at least that's to be expected. They're consistent. The Dems are applauding him and patting him on the back for taking a brave stand to defend our democracy with one hand, while with the other they are trying to get him primaried by a MAGA Trumper election-denying nut job. The word is, hypocrisy. And Meijer is 100% right that it's nauseating.

Aside from the irrelevant point that Meijer is a trust fund baby and wealthy beyond measure, the attack on him here is that the Bulwark feels (1) he should have leaned into his impeachment vote and made it a centerpiece of his campaign instead of "running away from it," and (2) Meijer shouldn't blame the Dems for how deranged the Republican voters are in his district.

(1) is just stupid. It makes no sense whatsoever. Meijer would be an asshat to make impeachment and Trump the fulcrum of his campaign. Utter nonsense.

(2) is equally stupid. Of course these GOP voters are off their combined rockers. The party is in a downward spiral of dysfunction. If the Dems had any sense, they'd realize that the demise of the GOP is not a fucking win for them. They need the GOP. We need two functioning parties. The Dems trying to feed the craziness and throwing gasoline on the fire -- incredibly hypocritical gasoline at that -- is morally and ethically wrong. It's also big-picture a strategic fuck up of the first order.

[malchior]

Apparently a toss up is understating it, since the district is now apparently Biden +8 by the 2020 vote. So FWIW Cook Political report puts the race at Lean Democrat with Gibbs as the nominee (whereas it would have been Lean Republican with Meijer).

That still sounds like a toss up. Biden +8 against Trump in a Presidential election year doesn't tell us much about what happens when Biden isn't on the ticket during a red wave. This is in agree to disagree territory. I simply can't be convinced me that it is acceptable to support fascists with democracy on the line because it might make a house district lean Democratic. I'm with Kurth here. I think it was wrong, plainly hypocritical, and not the type of wrong where the risk they took becomes acceptable or justifies it.

This article says it well

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/what- ... otect-good

Hit pause here for a second: Peter Meijer says that Democrats opportunistically running a negative ad that accurately described his opponent was more nauseating than members of his own party threatening him with violence and death.

I think that's a terrible, terrible take. And it really makes me question what the Bulwark is actually about.

I didn't care for that Bulwark piece either. It was mostly binary thinking and I think they completely misunderstood what Meijer said.

[Silky]

My understanding of the sitch is the DCCC ran a $445k add campaign calling Gibbs too conservative... Is the thought that this was to actually boost him in some meaningful way? Am I missing something?

[El Guapo]

Apparently a toss up is understating it, since the district is now apparently Biden +8 by the 2020 vote. So FWIW Cook Political report puts the race at Lean Democrat with Gibbs as the nominee (whereas it would have been Lean Republican with Meijer).

That still sounds like a toss up. Biden +8 against Trump in a Presidential election year doesn't tell us much about what happens when Biden isn't on the ticket during a red wave. This is in agree to disagree territory. I simply can't be convinced me that it is acceptable to support fascists with democracy on the line because it might make a house district lean Democratic. I'm with Kurth here. I think it was wrong, plainly hypocritical, and not the type of wrong where the risk they took becomes acceptable or justifies it.

To be clear I agree with you that meddling for Gibbs and against Meijer was a clear mistake and not worth the risk and the cost.

I just take issue with the idea that this type of meddling is always a bad idea (and here, just pointing out that at least they may have marginally increased their odds of winning the seat, which is not nothing, even if it doesn't justify the risks and costs here).

[malchior]

Sure it could be a sound tactic. This has been in the political playbook for some time. I take exception to it *now*. And especially the candidates they have been pushing.

[El Guapo]

Well, that's pretty unambiguous.

[Kurth]

I can't think of a time I have ever completely agreed with Dick Cheney, but I guess there's a first for everything.

[Unagi]

Let me look on you with my own eyes.

[Blackhawk]

I can't think of a time I have ever completely agreed with Dick Cheney

Well, except for the 'voted for his daughter' bit.

[Kurth]

If I were in Wyoming, I would 100% switch parties just to vote for Liz Cheney in the primary.

[El Guapo]

Let me look on you with my own eyes.

[El Guapo]

If I were in Wyoming, I would 100% switch parties just to vote for Liz Cheney in the primary.

Yeah, me too.

She is doomed though, right? I haven't seen any polling, but just guessing.

[malchior]

<double post>

[malchior]

If I were in Wyoming, I would 100% switch parties just to vote for Liz Cheney in the primary.

Yeah, me too.

She is doomed though, right? I haven't seen any polling, but just guessing.

She is underwater 20 points against a MAGA primary challenger. We'll know on 8/16.

[Unagi]

Let me look on you with my own eyes.

Oh, thank goodness. I was thinking no one got that.

[TheMix]

Let me look on you with my own eyes.

Oh, thank goodness. I was thinking no one got that.

I didn't get it. But I looked it up at the time. Does that count?

[El Guapo]

Let me look on you with my own eyes.

Oh, thank goodness. I was thinking no one got that.

I loved it.

[Grifman]

Prediction:

The Democrats will win the Senate and hold on to their majority in the House.

Discuss!

[Dramatist]

Prediction:

The Democrats will win the Senate and hold on to their majority in the House.

Discuss!

I feel good about the Democrats winning the senate. Not sure about the house. It’ll be tough with all the gerrymandering, but I think there’s a chance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Holman]

Prediction:

The Democrats will win the Senate and hold on to their majority in the House.

Discuss!

I think Dems will likely keep the Senate.

The flipping of the House was once a foregone conclusion, but now it seems less certain. Odds still favor the GOP, but if gas prices keep falling and inflation wanes (and especially if Biden/Pelosi pull off one more big-ticket legislative win), it's possible for Dems to keep it.

Killing Roe v Wade woke a lot of people up, and the Trumpists still don't seem to understand that they're on the wrong side of the Culture War.