GA-SEN 2022 Megathread: Werewolves and Vampires

[Unelectable Bystander]

Silly as it may sound, will UGA winning the national championship be a boost to Walker's chances?

No. But if Kirby Smart were the Republican candidate, it would help him (of course, Kirby Smart might not actually be a Republican, but the point still stands).

Sounds like a good idea actually

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://twitter.com/RRHElections/status/1514683314002665472

Is this substantiated?

[Unelectable Bystander]

I gotta say, it feels like in pretty much every key Senate race, GOP recruits have been from meh to downright awful, and if they lose any of these races it'd be quite embarrasing.

This is the problem when you run somebody just because you think they're a cool football player when they know nothing about policy.

I was told candidate quality doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is it is a Democratic midterm.

Ultimately the overall dynamics of the year are the most important, and the GOP very well may win this race for that reason alone, however, candidate quality can still impact the margin a few % and ina  close race that can really matter. Also Walker is a great lightning rod for Dems and I struggle to see what's particularly notable about his appeal to GOP voters. It's not like because he's black he's suddenly gonna get massive swings in downtown Atlanta which is how many on the GOP seem to think whenever they run a canidate of colour.

I mostly agree but why would you say he’s a lightning rod for Dems? I think his appeal is the fact that he’s a generic R without being a lightning rod. Specifically, he isn’t a boogeyman for many black voters like Trump was. I think that this, combined with apathy towards Biden could create a dip in Atlanta turnout, which is not something we’ve seen Dems overcome on a statewide level to date

[Unelectable Bystander]

I don't see why Walker is considered a "weak candidate" while Laxalt is considered a "strong candidate."

Has Walker ever won a statewide race? Has Laxalt made the dame bone-headed remarks as Walker?

Yep I think the assumption is as simple as this. But as mentioned further down, saying stupid things isn’t disqualifying if it doesn’t make you unlikeable (much like Biden)

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://twitter.com/ReverendWarnock/status/1529856140154118150

Well this sucks, he has apparently realized that he is much quicker on his feet

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1536513537144770562

Lol that interview is a funny look given Carson’s intelligence. But Walker is truly charismatic and seems like a nice guy, which is big

[Unelectable Bystander]

Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with Walker having these other children? They weren't "secret", they just weren't publicized during the campaign, which is completely fine to do.

The problem isn’t Walker having other children, it’s hiding them from the public, not being a part of their lives, and then lecturing the black community about absent fatherhood and how it’s the root of all social ills.

Whoever allowed this to be a part of the campaign should be fired. This in itself wouldn’t be indicting but he acts as if he’s running for head football coach at University of Georgia with the toughness and character lectures. It’s a great strategy long-term, but he’s not the candidate for it and it’s creating a Walker circus instead of focusing on the incumbent

[Unelectable Bystander]

For all of his flaws, this is actually smart by Walker to create the narrative that it’s democrats talking about these issues. For culture stuff to be effective, the narrative needs to be that democrats are extreme and they insist on talking about it instead of bread and butter issues.

[Unelectable Bystander]

For all of his flaws, this is actually smart by Walker to create the narrative that it’s democrats talking about these issues. For culture stuff to be effective, the narrative needs to be that democrats are extreme and they insist on talking about it instead of bread and butter issues.

That's a complete strawman though because Warnock has been talking about capping insulin and running on Democratic legislative accomplishments.

Fair, but Walker needs to talk about something and it won’t be his strong articulation of the issues

[Unelectable Bystander]

Dear God. This may be the worst crop of Senate candidates one party has fielded... ever.

This has to be McConnell 4D chess to make Trump look like an idiot, correct? Nobody could miss this many red flags on several candidates. The atlas democrats literally saw it coming.

[Unelectable Bystander]

In the 538 model, if Warnock and Fetterman both win, Dems are 95% favorites to hold the Senate, and 65% likely to win at least 52 seats. Dems even become narrow favorites to hold the House.

These probabilities are incorrect and this forum has a habit of using the model way out of context. Those results favor the democrats not just because of the results but because those results generally would indicate that it’s a good night for Dems. This assumption doesn’t hold when these two races will go blue strictly due to Oz and Walker being unelectable.

The Republican path is now AZ + NV + holding everything excel PA. Kelly is heavily favored but it’s still Arizona so I would estimate Master’s chances at 10-20%. But if that does happen, we can be 90-95% sure that Laxalt won and basically 100% sure that NC/OH/WI/FL held. In other words, Arizona might be both necessary but also sufficient to flip the senate. So Dems are mightily favored to win the senate at this point but I’d say only 85-90%.

For the same reasons above, the house race is completely unrelated to these results aside from probably a slight bump to Dems in the two PA tossup races due to GOP reputation damage. It certainly does not shift the house race odds by 25%.

[Unelectable Bystander]

I would support waiving the filibuster to reinstate Roe.

I suppose I'm one of these "swing voters" but for me, it's less about wanting to be undecided / putting off a decision and more about conflicting emotions I'm feeling this cycle. On the one hand, I don't want the Democrats in charge of the budget and on the other hand I don't want Republicans in charge of my wife's body. Scandals that make me question if a candidate is fundamentally fit for office absolutely can sway my vote.

A bunch of Biden/Warnock/Ossoff voters are about to vote for Kemp next month. These revelations absolutely have an effect on these same swing voters.

Honestly there are some swing voters who want to look "undecided".

They truly Can by voting both for Kemp and Warnock and I think this is what they will do

If that is the case I would think you'd vote against Kemp and for Walker. Abortion will be controlled by the states. No national abortion ban is taking place in the senate. The votes aren't there for it and Biden would never sign it even if there were 60+ votes.

This is an incredibly short-sighted view that ignores the fact that Senators serve six-year terms. A second Trump presidency paired with a Republican majority in the House and Senate would very likely result in some sort of national abortion ban and the only real question is whether it would be six weeks, ten weeks, or fifteen weeks.

You see the GOP having 60+ senate seats along with a house majority and president? I sure as hell do not. They would need at least 62 seats. Collins and Murkowski would not vote for it and even in their wildest dreams if that were to ever happen I do not see any form of national ban taking place. State bans are much more likely which is why I would think someone from GA who is more concerned about abortion would vote against R's in the governors race and not the senate race.

I have to agree with Cyrusman here. If democrats can eliminate the filibuster then can’t republicans do the same thing to repeal it and affirmatively pass restrictions? Isn’t the elimination of the filibuster for appointees the reason Trump got 3 justice picks that did not have to appeal to a broad coalition?

That to me sounds like a recipe for A) political whiplash and B) leaders having an increasingly outsized amount of power with limited checks

[Unelectable Bystander]

I would support waiving the filibuster to reinstate Roe.

I suppose I'm one of these "swing voters" but for me, it's less about wanting to be undecided / putting off a decision and more about conflicting emotions I'm feeling this cycle. On the one hand, I don't want the Democrats in charge of the budget and on the other hand I don't want Republicans in charge of my wife's body. Scandals that make me question if a candidate is fundamentally fit for office absolutely can sway my vote.

A bunch of Biden/Warnock/Ossoff voters are about to vote for Kemp next month. These revelations absolutely have an effect on these same swing voters.

Honestly there are some swing voters who want to look "undecided".

They truly Can by voting both for Kemp and Warnock and I think this is what they will do

If that is the case I would think you'd vote against Kemp and for Walker. Abortion will be controlled by the states. No national abortion ban is taking place in the senate. The votes aren't there for it and Biden would never sign it even if there were 60+ votes.

This is an incredibly short-sighted view that ignores the fact that Senators serve six-year terms. A second Trump presidency paired with a Republican majority in the House and Senate would very likely result in some sort of national abortion ban and the only real question is whether it would be six weeks, ten weeks, or fifteen weeks.

You see the GOP having 60+ senate seats along with a house majority and president? I sure as hell do not. They would need at least 62 seats. Collins and Murkowski would not vote for it and even in their wildest dreams if that were to ever happen I do not see any form of national ban taking place. State bans are much more likely which is why I would think someone from GA who is more concerned about abortion would vote against R's in the governors race and not the senate race.

I have to agree with Cyrusman here. If democrats can eliminate the filibuster then can’t republicans do the same thing to repeal it and affirmatively pass restrictions? Isn’t the elimination of the filibuster for appointees the reason Trump got 3 justice picks that did not have to appeal to a broad coalition?

That to me sounds like a recipe for A) political whiplash and B) leaders having an increasingly outsized amount of power with limited checks

I mean, you would, what with you and Cyrusman both being diehard Republican partisans.  There is no reason for anyone who is pro-choice to even consider voting Republican for Congress until the reinstatement of  Roe has been nationally codified.

That’s the whole point. Why would they vote Republican after it has been codified? If they care that much about it, then they should understand that the next Republican trifecta would just repeal it, and decide not vote for republicans ever. Settling something with 60 votes makes fairly certain that it will not be repealed, unlike something that barely passes.

Also, my personal feelings are unrelated. I think it would be a great thing if abortion didn’t exist, but I would absolutely not support a Republican dismantling the filibuster in order to set restrictions. This would increase the chance of a narcissistic president acting like a dictator, and it would give the left free reign to eventually institute insane ideas. I don’t get why the idea of a right wing president having an unlimited agenda doesn’t similarly scare liberals.

[Unelectable Bystander]

https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1577858344777400320?s=20&t=uClATU_WwSOP...

It's always Republicans who aren't running for reelection or who don't hold office who are free to "speak their minds", since they don't have to worry about Republican voters or about Trump. That's true between this man and Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Chris Christie, to give a few other examples.

But yes, it's hard for me to see Walker's campaign recovering from this. I believe Warnock is going to win reelection at this point; it's just a matter of if he wins outright or if he wins in the runoff.

The reactions to this scandal by conservatives has been rather disappointing and I honestly don’t blame democrats for pointing out the hypocrisy. It’s up to the voters to decide if they value policy over candidate quality, but at the very least the media outlets should not be acting  like it’s a nothing burger. I do wish Walker the best, but it might be a good thing if this cycle is characterized by some of the more incompetent and unprofessional candidates losing badly so we can get back to having higher standards for the leaders.

[Unelectable Bystander]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

[Unelectable Bystander]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

You’re directing that at me but I’m not irritated because I am in agreement that Walker is not fit to be a senator. I was jesting because a huge number of democrats would never vote for a respectable or well-behaved republican over a scandalous or incompetent democrat. They believe that electing democrats is a matter of life and death. I disagree but that is their right. All I’m saying is that everybody has that right.