Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by tacotiklah, Nov 7, 2017.
I would say it's given attention because it is symbolic, more than ironic.
He's only missing it because he wants to have his righteous fit.
The fact that someone in THAT part of the state won running on an anti-gun platform is especially telling. In Roem's case, that district is changing and Marshall played it like an idiot - but that was all he had, because he hadn't done anything actually useful in the House. Hurst winning in Roanoke, though, was a shock even to me - as was Carter taking out Jackson Miller, the majority Whip.
Despite how it's being portrayed in the national media - although the inclusiveness of the election is refreshing - this was a repudiation of the do-nothing GOP HoD that had no problem spending a large chunk of their part-time jobs debating a 20 week abortion bill that wouldn't have survived the state Supreme Court, much less the SCOTUS, but wouldn't fix the damn roads and bridges.
^Bingo. As a former resident who is still nearby: It's getting attention because it was part of a larger, State-wide movement, in which Dems trounced the GOP by margins not seen since the late 1800's. The northern districts have pretty much always been the bluest part of the State's purple gradient, but now the rural districts seem to be changing hue.
This could easily be short lived, but it's giving folks a glimmer of hope, that while 2016 may have been a result of voter apathy, it seems to have resulted in waking voters up from that apathy.
What we're experiencing is essentially the Republicans subjecting their voting base to "Sophie's choice". They'll pick one or two items that the core supporters are uncompromising on (Guns, God, Gays, etc.) and then they'll run an absolutely abhorrent ghoul against the Democrat as basically a dare to the voters as to which which part of their conscience they'll listen to.
The whole 'tough, straight shooter' candidate thing might've worked for Trump because he has a whole cabinet of people to cushion the policy part of whatever incendiary thing he tweets, but I don't think that kind of politics works at a local level.
I agree. Pretty much no one I know personally ever votes along party lines for local people. In fact, some people I know make it a habit to simply vote against the incumbent in local elections, since the incumbents almost always win by huge margins, as a sort of a statement, even if they know nothing about the contender. Personally, I actually really enjoy studying up on local candidates and weighing them out for what they believe in and how well I assess they'll be able to enact their beliefs, then casting a vote for whomever seems the least destructive. When I lived in Michigan and Indiana, I almost always picked all losers every time, but here, I think the masses tend to think a little more like I do. Pretty much the last thing I care about when researching a candidate is that candidates anatomy or sexual preferences.
This must be a cynical New Englander thing, because everyone I know does the same thing