GA senatorial campaign

[echappist]

As a GA voter who's pretty in the middle politically (I'm one of those annoying 'fiscally conservative socially liberal' folks) once again I'm disappointed in my choices.

I hope you don't mind me drilling down into this, but could you explain what you think epitomizes being a fiscal conservative? Does it mean low taxes, being fiscally responsible, or being friendly to businesses (in particular big businesses). Because if fiscal conservative were to be understood to mean fiscal responsibility (one of the traditional interpretations), there's not much fiscal responsibility exhibited by GOP policies of the last decade or so.

One could argue that the GOP is more favorable to large businesses, in aspects such as removing regulations and reducing taxes, but being favorable to large business does not equate to being fiscally conservative.

Personally, I'd like to see Biden be more fiscally responsible. For instance, I think the optics of the recent loan forgiveness to be quite horrible (moral hazard, etc).

I personally think that someone like GHW Bush, his nomination of Thomas to the Supreme Court aside, otherwise had a fiscal policy that is reasonable and responsible.

[Tom]

To me, fiscally conservative means thinking in the long term. Spend money on what saves money.

[bcm119]

As a GA voter who's pretty in the middle politically (I'm one of those annoying 'fiscally conservative socially liberal' folks) once again I'm disappointed in my choices.

Being disappointed in your choices is normal. Just remember that one of those choices WILL be elected, so it's your duty to cast a vote if you have any slight preference at all. One of the most damaging misconceptions today is that voting is some sort of endorsement, approval, or acknowledgement that the candidate has somehow earned the job, and it's not any of that at all. Hate them both? Choose the one you hate slightly less. Proponents of third parties rightly point out that this situation sucks, but unless the entire system changes, we can't all walk away from it and run the risk of the worst people taking over, because they gladly will.

[jclay]

Being disappointed in your choices is normal. Just remember that one of those choices WILL be elected, so it's your duty to cast a vote if you have any slight preference at all. One of the most damaging misconceptions today is that voting is some sort of endorsement, approval, or acknowledgement that the candidate has somehow earned the job, and it's not any of that at all. Hate them both? Choose the one you hate slightly less. Proponents of third parties rightly point out that this situation sucks, but unless the entire system changes, we can't all walk away from it and run the risk of the worst people taking over, because they gladly will.

And this time it's simply a choice between picking folks who either will, or won't, defend our democratic institutions so that they survive for, hopefully, improved days; simple as that. And given the near 100% percentage of GOP officials & candidates who have and continue refusing to reject and rebuke, and even openly support, Trump's attack on our foundations you vote Democratic or you are handing the axe to those who have and continue to hack away at our foundations.

[dgaddis]

Being disappointed in your choices is normal. Just remember that one of those choices WILL be elected, so it's your duty to cast a vote if you have any slight preference at all. One of the most damaging misconceptions today is that voting is some sort of endorsement, approval, or acknowledgement that the candidate has somehow earned the job, and it's not any of that at all. Hate them both? Choose the one you hate slightly less. Proponents of third parties rightly point out that this situation sucks, but unless the entire system changes, we can't all walk away from it and run the risk of the worst people taking over, because they gladly will.

I know a LOT of Trump voters who voted for him for ^^that^^ very reason. They didn't like him but they HATED Clinton. The "Trumpsters" (his he-can-do-no-wrong fans) get a lot of media attention but there's a huge swath of conservative folks who weren't fans of his but voted for him simply to make sure the wrong lizard didn't get in (that's a call back folks).

By fiscally conservative I do mean the 'traditional' sense, fiscally responsible - don't spend beyond your means. Agree 100% the GOP hasn't been that in recent years. Even when Trump cut taxes, he didn't cut spending - that's *not* fiscally conservative.

[Saab2000]

I know a LOT of Trump voters who voted for him for ^^that^^ very reason. They didn't like him but they HATED Clinton. The "Trumpsters" (his he-can-do-no-wrong fans) get a lot of media attention but there's a huge swath of conservative folks who weren't fans of his but voted for him simply to make sure the wrong lizard didn't get in (that's a call back folks).

By fiscally conservative I do mean the 'traditional' sense, fiscally responsible - don't spend beyond your means. Agree 100% the GOP hasn't been that in recent years. Even when Trump cut taxes, he didn't cut spending - that's *not* fiscally conservative.

Consider whom you would like representing your state in the United States Senate. There are imperfect choices and there are even worse ones. We all face these choices in life.

It seems a ranked-choice system might be a thing we, as a nation, should examine. Its use in Alaska provided an interesting result recently. I believe we would have far better representation if this model were more widely adopted.

[HorsCat]

Apropos of nothing, if any of my girls grow up to be ½ the woman that Mrs. Clinton is, I'll be a proud papa.

[j44ke]

I know a LOT of Trump voters who voted for him for ^^that^^ very reason. They didn't like him but they HATED Clinton. The "Trumpsters" (his he-can-do-no-wrong fans) get a lot of media attention but there's a huge swath of conservative folks who weren't fans of his but voted for him simply to make sure the wrong lizard didn't get in (that's a call back folks).

By fiscally conservative I do mean the 'traditional' sense, fiscally responsible - don't spend beyond your means. Agree 100% the GOP hasn't been that in recent years. Even when Trump cut taxes, he didn't cut spending - that's *not* fiscally conservative.

Cutting taxes is just like spending, and while it may be effective vote-getting for “conservatives” it isn’t typically fiscally responsible. More like giving taxpayers magic beans for their dairy cow of social spending. But sucker born every minute. Besides if you are all for destroying effective government, tax cuts work pretty well. More blood letting! The patient is weakening.

[echappist]

Cutting taxes is just like spending, and while it may be effective vote-getting for “conservatives” it isn’t typically fiscally responsible. More like giving taxpayers magic beans for their dairy cow of social spending. But sucker born every minute. Besides if you are all for destroying effective government, tax cuts work pretty well. More blood letting! The patient is weakening.

And eventually weak enough that the metaphorical patient could be drowned in the proverbial bathtub…

[vertical_doug]

I hope you don't mind me drilling down into this, but could you explain what you think epitomizes being a fiscal conservative? Does it mean low taxes, being fiscally responsible, or being friendly to businesses (in particular big businesses). Because if fiscal conservative were to be understood to mean fiscal responsibility (one of the traditional interpretations), there's not much fiscal responsibility exhibited by GOP policies of the last decade or so.

One could argue that the GOP is more favorable to large businesses, in aspects such as removing regulations and reducing taxes, but being favorable to large business does not equate to being fiscally conservative.

Personally, I'd like to see Biden be more fiscally responsible. For instance, I think the optics of the recent loan forgiveness to be quite horrible (moral hazard, etc).

I personally think that someone like GHW Bush, his nomination of Thomas to the Supreme Court aside, otherwise had a fiscal policy that is reasonable and responsible.

I think both parties are fiscally irresponsible. The only difference is who is getting the gravy which is driven by the demands of the social side. The dems are socially liberal but because of the primary system, you largely get the more extreme liberal views. The current GOP is just as fiscally irresponsible, but extremely conservative socially.

Both GHW and BC were fiscally responsible presidents. I think the big mistake Bill Clinton made was leaving Alan Greenspan for a fourth term as Fed Head. It's his combination of easy money and no regulation that started to inflate the ever increasing bubbles of dotcom . W Bush compounded the problem nominating him for a fifth term. Greenspan did not really believe in regulation and is really responsible for the housing bubble that nearly wiped us out in 2008.

In many respects, Greenspan's tenure is a lot like Ginsberg. It was great in the beginning, but as hubris took over, they both overstayed their welcome with horrible results.

[Scott G.]

Cutting taxes is just like spending, and while it may be effective vote-getting for “conservatives” it isn’t typically fiscally responsible. [snip]

Ask Minister Kwarteng, tax cut = pound tanks.
Charles III may have to start sending people to the Tower.

[Mark Walberg]

While riding my bike yesterday, it occurred to me that Herschel Walker is the obvious choice for Trump's running mate in '24.

1. Proven ability to lie about bad press.
2. Has shown that bad press does not really bother him that much.
3. Conservatives will vote for him despite a public admission of low intelligence.
4. He would get votes that Trump might otherwise not get.
5. And, most important of all of course, he would be an unshakable Trump supporter.

Just imagine Herschel as president.

[j44ke]

While riding my bike yesterday, it occurred to me that Herschel Walker is the obvious choice for Trump's running mate in '24.

1. Proven ability to lie about bad press.
2. Has shown that bad press does not really bother him that much.
3. Conservatives will vote for him despite a public admission of low intelligence.
4. He would get votes that Trump might otherwise not get.
5. And, most important of all of course, he would be an unshakable Trump supporter.

Just imagine Herschel as president.

Don’t have to. There is already a movie about it. By Mike Judge who knows idiots. Made in 2005! So he saw it coming.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

[TTX1]

To me, fiscally conservative means thinking in the long term. Spend money on what saves money.

That's precisely how a lot of social programs (and insurance, for that matter) work: provide a safety net to avoid high cost interventions downstream.

Yet, we consistently find that Rs want to strip social programs.

There's a big difference between arguing to better manage programs and reduce waste to ensure tax dollars are used effectively - vs. wholesale scrapping taxes and dismantling programs.

One example is education. Another is social security. Another is health (insurance).

Spending on these programs is like an investment porfolio - in the long-term fiscal health of the nation.

However we live in a time when a large percentage of the population has an "us vs. them" mentality and seemingly no sense that spending on these programs benefits everyone - particularly our kids - in the long run.

And don't get me started on climate...

[72gmc]

I’m not voting for candidates who align with the party that is currently aligned with an end-democracy ideology. I don’t think every republican is a sycophant of the malignant mango of Mar-a-lago, but I hold them responsible for not policing the craven twits who are flying their flag.

[vertical_doug]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...weimar/671605/

It really is about the enablers. The only question for Trump is whether he will surround himself with better enablers in 2024.

I've seen the results in Hungary and Turkey.

[jclay]

1) As a GA voter who's pretty in the middle politically (I'm one of those annoying 'fiscally conservative socially liberal' folks) once again I'm disappointed in my choices.

2) Abrams has many things going against her for me, most recently she said the heat beat you hear on a sonogram isn't real, that it is a manufactured sound so men can control women's bodies. Ugh.

3) They didn't like him but they HATED Clinton…..conservative folks who weren't fans of his but voted for him simply to make sure the wrong lizard didn't get in (that's a call back folks).

Not that my observations are new, but as you’re thinking out loud:

Re 1) Fiscal conservatism simply isn’t on the menu and won’t be for an indeterminate time.

2) I feel that Stacey was trying to make the larger point that it’s mostly old, socially conservative & conventional white men who are manufacturing the flash point. Aside from that, when does a nacent, developing heart become a “real heart” and have a “real” heart beat? It’s a matter of the definition adopted.

The reason religious conservatives want a fetus classified as a human or talk about “heart beats” is bc it makes it easier to get religious cultural and legal buy-in that abortion is “murder”, and therefore prohibited; game over. At 8.5 months (and given no medical imperatives) I’d agree; at the end of the first trimester I wouldn’t. Somewhere between those two arbitrarily chosen points (of developing mass of cells, through fetus in-between, to a human infant that’s pretty much ready for birth) is a reasonable and beneficial (to individuals, families & society at large) “on demand” period. I think that’s both reasonable, humane and necessary. I don’t want to force people who don’t want children to have them; I want an easy out for them and an on-demand first trimester abortion is part of that and I think reasonable! There are a bunch of really good reasons to not force births.

As to Stacey? To me there’s no question, its Stacey. Our country (and the world) is evolving. I don’t want to elect people who deny that or try to stop it. I want people who will take unequivocal stances against the political/electoral mendacity that Trump lit the afterburners on, and be sensitive and sensible to complex issues that certain old white men refuse to deal with in good faith...or at all. Like CRT, which isn’t taught in k-12 as best I know, and is otherwise called provable, documented “history”.

3) I suggest folks vote for lizards (and they aren’t all lizards) that don’t subscribe to overthrowing or otherwise perverting elections. From my perspective that single issue eclipses all the others. If we elect folks who sabotage our democratic institutions the USA is screwed and I think we’re a gnat’s ass from going down that road. This election shouldn’t be close; it should be a democratic blow-out but only if we’re lucky will the dems retain their power (easily derailed as it is). The "they" to which you refer let their hate cause them to select an insurrectionist. They'd have done far better to weigh policy issues (I know....dream on John). From my perspective Hill's was largely a pretty conservative politician.

[vertical_doug]

It's all about finding wedge issues and hammer that home to divide the population.

Once you find an emotional wedge, you need to get the most extreme example to scare people- whether it is abortion, transgender, crime, drugs, illegal immigration, climate change or what not. . .it's about winning. This is a game for the outcome nothing more.

Once you are in power, you reward your donors.

It's why so many corporations play both sides. They don't care about the outcome, they only want their cheddar.
It is along this line that people don't appreciate how well Elon Musk plays this game.

(The saddest thing about the abortion debate is making people who don't want children to have them, and preventing people who can't have them from having them. Banning IVF will eventually happen)

[Peter Polack]

While riding my bike yesterday, it occurred to me that Herschel Walker is the obvious choice for Trump's running mate in '24.

1. Proven ability to lie about bad press.
2. Has shown that bad press does not really bother him that much.
3. Conservatives will vote for him despite a public admission of low intelligence.
4. He would get votes that Trump might otherwise not get.
5. And, most important of all of course, he would be an unshakable Trump supporter.

Just imagine Herschel as president.

Here's political columnist Charles M. Blow's assessment of the Walker/Warnock debate.

Kind of agrees with your observations.

[Marvinlungwitz]

Reagan era tax cuts and Star Wars spending happened 40 years ago, fwiw. Any GOP talk of fiscal responsibility is laughable, and has been so for decades.

Btw, remember Whip Inflation Now, double digit interest rates of the 1980s, $4/gallon gas in 2007, and the 2008 collapse?

It’s also fascinating that so few US citizens are aware that the US manufacturing sector went into recession well before the pandemic, in late 2018 (government spending kept the country out of recession).

Rant over.