Keith Ellison (D-MN) vs. Justin Amash (R-MI)

[Woke Frenzy]

A populist Democrat vs. a libertarian Republican, both of which are U.S. Representatives from the Midwest.


(I hope I've chosen the right photos this time.)

How possible is it that either of them runs?

[Coraxion]

My motto is "Better dead than red."

(not Atlas red)

[America Needs R'hllor]

God, that would be a terrible choice. I guess I'd end up supporting Ellison very reluctantly, and I think Amash would narrowly win. Just because every candidate I supported since 2008 lost.

[Classic Conservative]

I'd vote for Amash but it would be begrudgingly after his vote on Kate's Law. He'd probably win against the "black Muslim guy from Minneapolis", the conspiracy theories would be crazy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would think in such a contest there would be vibrant 3rd parties.

I'd vote for Amash, in all likelihood, but I might vote 3rd party, depending on what the 3rd party was advocating.

[Horus]

Amash would win, though I'd support Ellison. This country will elect a libertarian before they elect a Muslim.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Justin Amash would be my favorite presidential nominee from either major party since at least Calvin Coolidge.

I also think he would win. I think the core liberal constituency could get behind Ellison, but minority turnout wouldn't be any better than it was for Hillary (I assume there would be a good-sized group of conservative minorities who would sit this out due to not wanting to vote for a Muslim), and for the same reason plus Amash being more anti-redistribution and less, um, bizzare on social media than Donald Trump, I say Ellison would do much worse in the suburbs than Hillary did.

[RFKFan68]

Eh.... I don't like either one so I will probably just vote down ballot as neither seem like they would be too destructible. I would reluctantly vote Ellison if I felt Amash would do harm to certain causes.

[RINO Tom]

Enthusiastic vote for Amash, who would also win.

[darklordoftech]

Ellison because he wants a lower voting age, but I like Amash too because he voted against an anti-sexting law.

[7,052,770]

I would vote Ellison, but obviously Amash would win big.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Enthusiastic vote for Amash, who would also win.

[The_Doctor]

Enthusiastic vote for Amash, who would also win.

[Voice of low info America]

Amash is less bad on Israel from what I know, so he'd have my vote.

[Kingpoleon]

Enthusiastic vote for Amash, who would also win.

[Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Enthusiastic vote for Ellison, but America will never elect a Muslim because of ignorant fears of "muh black terrorist in the white house."

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Enthusiastic vote for Amash, who would also win.

[Ye We Can]

Enthusiastic vote for Amash, who would also win.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Amash would win, of course, but not because of Ellison's Islam. Nobody cares about religion any more, Mitt Romney got nominated and the majority of the GOP had a favorable view of Ben Carson (seriously, look up SDA doctrine; it's absolutely nuts), nobody whined because of Mike Pence or Paul Ryan's nominal Catholicism, etc. Rather, Ellison would lose because of his poor party connections (there isn't any reason to believe the Democratic base will be enthusiastic with a Bernie primary supporter at the helm) and his foolish attempts at radicalism. Amash also has these problems, but he's a much better campaigner and is far superior at hiding his views on the issues due to his showy lone "no" votes, endless appeals to the literal text of the Constitution, Trump-like speeches, etc. Let's just remember Hillary (due to her greater moderation) got more than twenty thousand more votes than Ellison in his district, while Amash (due to his careful precautions against alienating the well educated) got more than twenty thousand more votes than Trump.

I would support Ellison, of course; Amash is an extreme Republican who wants to cut the social safety net.

[BuckeyeNut]

Amash would win, of course, but not because of Ellison's Islam. Nobody cares about religion any more, Mitt Romney got nominated and the majority of the GOP had a favorable view of Ben Carson (seriously, look up SDA doctrine; it's absolutely nuts), nobody whined because of Mike Pence or Paul Ryan's nominal Catholicism, etc. Rather, Ellison would lose because of his poor party connections (there isn't any reason to believe the Democratic base will be enthusiastic with a Bernie primary supporter at the helm) and his foolish attempts at radicalism. Amash also has these problems, but he's a much better campaigner and is far superior at hiding his views on the issues due to his showy lone "no" votes, endless appeals to the literal text of the Constitution, Trump-like speeches, etc. Let's just remember Hillary (due to her greater moderation) got more than twenty thousand more votes than Ellison in his district, while Amash (due to his careful precautions against alienating the well educated) got more than twenty thousand more votes than Trump.

I would support Ellison, of course; Amash is an extreme Republican who wants to cut the social safety net.

LOL
O
L

[This is Eharding, guys]

Amash would win, of course, but not because of Ellison's Islam. Nobody cares about religion any more, Mitt Romney got nominated and the majority of the GOP had a favorable view of Ben Carson (seriously, look up SDA doctrine; it's absolutely nuts), nobody whined because of Mike Pence or Paul Ryan's nominal Catholicism, etc. Rather, Ellison would lose because of his poor party connections (there isn't any reason to believe the Democratic base will be enthusiastic with a Bernie primary supporter at the helm) and his foolish attempts at radicalism. Amash also has these problems, but he's a much better campaigner and is far superior at hiding his views on the issues due to his showy lone "no" votes, endless appeals to the literal text of the Constitution, Trump-like speeches, etc. Let's just remember Hillary (due to her greater moderation) got more than twenty thousand more votes than Ellison in his district, while Amash (due to his careful precautions against alienating the well educated) got more than twenty thousand more votes than Trump.

I would support Ellison, of course; Amash is an extreme Republican who wants to cut the social safety net.

LOL
O
L

It's true. It wasn't because of his Islam Ellison lost to Perez in the DNC chair race. It wasn't because of his Mormonism Romney lost Ohio in November 2012. And it wasn't because of his Judaism Cantor lost to Brat in the VA-07 Republican primary in 2014.

Meanwhile, religious bias demonstrably did affect voting preference in the 1928 and 1960 presidential elections. There was not even one county in the entire country that demonstrably swung against Romney because of his Mormonism (a far less familiar religion to most Americans than Catholicism).

Racial and religious bias simply play no role whatsoever in modern American voting preferences. Policy stances do. That's why if the Democrats want to win, it is advisable they move right. Look at the voting records of the Trump district House Democrats. They don't exactly look like Keith Ellison's.

[Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Amash would win, of course, but not because of Ellison's Islam. Nobody cares about religion any more, Mitt Romney got nominated and the majority of the GOP had a favorable view of Ben Carson (seriously, look up SDA doctrine; it's absolutely nuts), nobody whined because of Mike Pence or Paul Ryan's nominal Catholicism, etc. Rather, Ellison would lose because of his poor party connections (there isn't any reason to believe the Democratic base will be enthusiastic with a Bernie primary supporter at the helm) and his foolish attempts at radicalism. Amash also has these problems, but he's a much better campaigner and is far superior at hiding his views on the issues due to his showy lone "no" votes, endless appeals to the literal text of the Constitution, Trump-like speeches, etc. Let's just remember Hillary (due to her greater moderation) got more than twenty thousand more votes than Ellison in his district, while Amash (due to his careful precautions against alienating the well educated) got more than twenty thousand more votes than Trump.

I would support Ellison, of course; Amash is an extreme Republican who wants to cut the social safety net.

LOL
O
L

It's true. It wasn't because of his Islam Ellison lost to Perez in the DNC chair race. It wasn't because of his Mormonism Romney lost Ohio in November 2012. And it wasn't because of his Judaism Cantor lost to Brat in the VA-07 Republican primary in 2014.

Meanwhile, religious bias demonstrably did affect voting preference in the 1928 and 1960 presidential elections. There was not even one county in the entire country that demonstrably swung against Romney because of his Mormonism (a far less familiar religion to most Americans than Catholicism).

Racial and religious bias simply play no role whatsoever in modern American voting preferences. Policy stances do. That's why if the Dems want to win, it is advisable they move right. Look at the voting records of the Trump district House Democrats. They don't exactly look like Keith Ellison's.

Mormonism, Judaism, and Catholicism are not even close to being as controversial as Islam in America. The idea of electing a Muslim scares the hell out of millions of Americans ever since the constant onslaught of Fox News propaganda began after 9/11. Even if he somehow manages to win, the resistance against him will be even more vicious than that against Trump, Obama, and Bush combined. Many ancestral Democratic states across the South strongly voted against Obama because they falsely believed he's a Muslim born in Kenya. I think Ellison would enthuse the progressive and minority base of the party, but he would get crushed in rural areas and the suburbs just like Mondale in 1984 because Ellison has some views that are outside the mainstream. The military-industrial complex, banks, and oil companies would also despise him, and an election featuring him against any Republican will involve endless billions of dollars of advertising in order to keep him out of the White House.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Mormonism, Judaism, and Catholicism are not even close to being as controversial as Islam in America.

If that was an issue, I'd expect an Ellison campaign to counteract that easily by condemning Islamic movements that harm Americans and emphasizing his patriotism in ads. Is there any evidence Muslims tend to underperform relative to similar non-Muslim candidates in America?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't deny this is true now. But experience has shown me people's minds are extremely malleable on issues not essential to them. Just look at what Trump did to GOP stances. One day free trade is good (McCain), the next, it is America's first economic problem (Trump). One day troops should stay in Iraq for a hundred years (McCain), the next day the GOP nominee was right to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning (Trump). I see no reason the same should not be true for Islam, given proper framing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends on how he conducts his campaign, his relations with the press, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor weren't Blanched because they were thought to be Muslims. It was because the electorate of Arkansas opposed their policy stances, which were brought to greater attention with the existence of a Democratic Senate. These same people would have proudly voted for Nikki Haley had she been the Republican nominee for President or for Senate. Again, race and religion do not matter for American voters any more. Policy stances continue to do. I, for one, think the decline in racial and religious prejudice has been a good thing for the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The banks and the oil companies would obviously rally behind Amash. The military-industrial complex would, if anything, choose Ellison, because Amash supports cuts to military spending and, unlike Ellison, opposed Obama's intervention against Gaddafi. However, I don't think it'd be a money issue that drowns out Ellison. Unions and government-connected firms have a great deal of money to spend. Amash is not exactly Nancy Pelosi in terms of his fundraising ability.
You are right, of course, that Ellison would very likely get crushed in rural areas and the suburbs. Amash is good at handling press.

[Different Republican]

Enthusiastic vote for Amash, who would also win.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Being a Mormon isn't all that controversial outside of extreme fundamentalists and social liberals, both of whom will overlook it if a candidate plays to their issues, Judaism is only controversial to extreme fringe people who probably don't even support either of the two main parties (although Trump won a lot over) and Catholicism isn't controversial at all as a trait in a Presidential candidate. Islam is. That's pretty obvious. Also Pence is not Catholic.