My guilty pleasure of sorts is that I hope Coleman gets elected to one term, gets shunned, and then we get a normal progressive Dem for the seat in 2022 who actually represents the district.
I didn't dig in-depth through Frownfelter's voting record, but I did notice one fairly common phenomenon: whenever the votes were approximately 2:1 on a bill (i.e. more or less the partisan breakdown of the chamber), he was almost always on the winning side.
This more or less tells me that Frownfelter is a conservadem who's been riding on incumbency throughout his career but not actually representing the voters of his district. If he were to win a write-in campaign this year, he'd just end up entrenched once again - whereas if he loses, one or more qualified progressive challengers will seek the office in 2022 and we'll be rid of both of them.
I'd rather deal with an impotent loser for 2 years than a conservadem for another 20.
I respect you and your opinion a lot, but I do feel like this is kind of a failure of the Atlasmind, or generally political nerd minds. We won't have to "deal" with Frownfelter- as bad as he is, he's just one state legislator in one of 50 states, and a pretty Republican state at that. His influence on any Kansans on his district is small, it's extremely minimal for the rest of the people of Kansas, and it's non-existent for you or any other non-Kansas resident.
It's that much more important to draw a line and say "hey, if you- Republicans, Democrats, far-right or far-left-" run a candidate who's so foul, so much of a scum, he'll not get elected. We'll find a way to reject him. In this particular instance, it's important to draw a line for the American far-left and say that they better stop excusing horrible actions for ideological purity. It's so much more important and has a lot more meaning than if a random state legislator whose policy positions aren't great gets entrenched for a few more years.
