GA-SEN 2022 Megathread: Werewolves and Vampires

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/catargetbot/status/1400804696474877956?s=21

No chance. If David Perdue's angry walk through the field wasn't enough... Just picture this guy on a debate stage with Warnock.

The fact that this man is only 63 blows my mind. He's over a decade younger than Mitt Romney.

Yet another example of how people age at different rates. You have some people who are grayed and look elderly by the time they hit 50, and others at that age who look like they are in their 30s.

[Calthrina950]

Buddy Carter endorses Walker.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bluestein/status/1430517737298739204

I swear that algorithms write statements for Republicans these days. Punch in those numbers!

I commented about this myself about a month or two ago, regarding Ann Wagner's statement announcing her decision to run for reelection. There seems to be a laundry list of "dirty words" that they keep on hand and throw in when necessary.

[Calthrina950]

Carter must be pissed; he really wanted to run for this seat.

Looks like he’ll wait for Ossoff’s seat.

He'll be waiting for a long time. It's possible that Ossoff becomes a lifer, and that he could be in the Senate for decades to come.

[Calthrina950]

Carter must be pissed; he really wanted to run for this seat.

Looks like he’ll wait for Ossoff’s seat.

He'll be waiting for a long time. It's possible that Ossoff becomes a lifer, and that he could be in the Senate for decades to come.

Also, Ossoff seems to be doing a good job from an objective standpoint. He's skilled at appearing very 'middle of the road' and reasonable, even while being a very liberal senator.

He's certainly more substantive than he appeared to be when he first emerged on the political scene back in 2017.

[Calthrina950]

I'm still thinking Warnock narrowly wins.

Here, we agree.

[Calthrina950]

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

Is this substantiated?

This is SUBSTANTIATED

Yeah Man.  The Victim of Warnock's Abuse was given a Huge Settlement. 
https://thenewamerican.com/victims-describes-abuse-at-senate-candidate-warnocks-camp-lawsuit-settled-warnock-arrested-charges-dropped/

He was arrested for interfering with a police investigation related to a child abuse scandal at his Church Summer Camp.  He left the Church when a case was settled, but the documents have mysteriously gone missing.
https://rumble.com/vc5gq1-if-this-was-a-republican-how-fast-would-this-go-viral-warnock-is-a-wife-abu.html

A Victim was interviewed about Warnock's involvement in the case. He says Warnock threw urine on him and locked him a locker.  Was surprised to learn about Warnock's run for office.
https://freebeacon.com/elections/camper-recounts-abuse-at-warnock-church-camp/

There was a video of his wife making accusations against Warnock that he ran over her foot while trying to take their young children.  It's a body cam footage.  She wasn't lying to the cop on the body cam.  https://rumble.com/vc5gq1-if-this-was-a-republican-how-fast-would-this-go-viral-warnock-is-a-wife-abu.html

To Recap:
1) You got the Child Abuse Court Case involving a Camp he was Heading
2) You have the police arrest due to his interference of the child abuse investigation
3) He leaves on camp when the case settles (think Bill O'Reilly).  
4) A Witness comes forward to do interview about Warnock abusing him.
5) His Wife calls the police cause she alleges that Warnock tried to taking her kids, and drove over her foot as he was leaving.

girl you tried it but nah.

Is all of this about Warnock hearsay? I haven't heard about this elsewhere.

[Calthrina950]

I genuinely feel sorry for Herschel Walker. I can't help but laugh when I watch video clips of him speaking, as he clearly unprepared for the office that he is running for. He's being taken advantage of by other people and doesn't even know it, or if he does know it, allows for it to continue.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/mere___dith/status/1575606029424828416

This ad is very good.

Warnock is very charismatic and a good campaigner, which are factors that work in his favor, especially in contrast to someone like Walker.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1576550076385746948

To be honest, no black Republican candidate is ever going to win the black vote, so long as the partisan coalitions remain the same as they do now. The majority of black voters (~75% according to one poll I saw) have a negative opinion of the Republican Party and are Yellow Dog Democrats, who will vote Democratic for as long as they live.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1577290109124329472

They are hypocrites, but it is not surprising to me that they would continue to support him. As seen with Trump, Republican voters have demonstrated that they are willing to overlook the "bad moral qualities" of their candidates for the sake of political victory against the Democrats. Trump received roughly 80% of the white evangelical vote in both of his elections.

[Calthrina950]

And how are all of you in politically boring states doing?

Wish my state was less politically boring.  I hate our governor.

I don't think anyone particularly likes Noem, even many Republicans. It's unfortunate that Sutton didn't win in 2018, and that she's Safe for reelection this year.

[Calthrina950]

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.

[Calthrina950]

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.

How is Liz Cheney an example of this?  She was speaking up on Trump while she was still House Conference Chair.

That cost Cheney that position, and she's become even more outspoken since losing her primary, to the point that she's now supporting Democratic nominees Hobbs and Fonte in Arizona.

[Calthrina950]

This is going from bad to worse

Reporter: You said that if this did happen, there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Walker: Wait, I never said it.

Reporter: You said it this morning on Hugh Hewitt's show.

Republicans should cut Walker loose at this point, but they will not. Many of them are doubling down on their support for him, as they see Walker as a reliable vote for their policy priorities. This is precisely the reason why Trump overwhelmingly won the white evangelical vote, and the votes of most Republicans who did not like him personally.

They believed that policy was more important than morality. And this is why Walker will still garner ~45% or more of the vote in Georgia, and why the race could still be headed to a runoff. Why would a Republican voter abandon Walker for this scandal when they see Warnock and Democrats as promoting abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars?

[Calthrina950]

This is going from bad to worse

Reporter: You said that if this did happen, there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Walker: Wait, I never said it.

Reporter: You said it this morning on Hugh Hewitt's show.

Republicans should cut Walker loose at this point, but they will not. Many of them are doubling down on their support for him, as they see Walker as a reliable vote for their policy priorities. This is precisely the reason why Trump overwhelmingly won the white evangelical vote, and the votes of most Republicans who did not like him personally.

They believed that policy was more important than morality. And this is why Walker will still garner ~45% or more of the vote in Georgia, and why the race could still be headed to a runoff. Why would a Republican voter abandon Walker for this scandal when they see Warnock and Democrats as promoting abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars?

Walker needs more than just the GOP to get to 45%, though. Independents will now be the key to this.

Are you saying that Walker could fall into the lower 40s? That would imply Warnock is winning by double digits, which I don't believe is possible. We're not going to see a Todd Akin electoral outcome here.

[Calthrina950]

This is going from bad to worse

Reporter: You said that if this did happen, there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Walker: Wait, I never said it.

Reporter: You said it this morning on Hugh Hewitt's show.

Republicans should cut Walker loose at this point, but they will not. Many of them are doubling down on their support for him, as they see Walker as a reliable vote for their policy priorities. This is precisely the reason why Trump overwhelmingly won the white evangelical vote, and the votes of most Republicans who did not like him personally.

They believed that policy was more important than morality. And this is why Walker will still garner ~45% or more of the vote in Georgia, and why the race could still be headed to a runoff. Why would a Republican voter abandon Walker for this scandal when they see Warnock and Democrats as promoting abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars?

This kind of goes to show that many of the most annoying pro-lifers like baseballcrank and his ilk at the National Review/Federalist are straight up lying when they say they think abortion is murdering a baby. I should know, I know many people who genuinely believe this. Like, I believe they think it's bad, but it is simply not the case that they genuinely believe that a zygote is equivalent to a baby.

The reason I know this is that they find it exceedingly easy to vote for someone who they ostensibly believe financed the murder of his infant child and is pretty transparently not repentant. Like, you can justify it if you believe that Warnock will kill more babies indirectly, but none of them seem particularly concerned about wrestling with this at all. I mean, check out this quote from David Harsanyi for the Federalist:

"Without the slightest hesitation, I would support a sociopathic constitutionalist, prone to debauchery and lying, over a chaste family man who believes in a collectivist or authoritarian philosophy. The latter’s bad ideas have generational consequences. I don’t care if he takes his kids to soccer practice every day."

This is the type of argument you make to justify, like, voting for Bob Menendez despite his corruption or voting for David Vitter despite his soliciting a prostitute. Comparing infanticide to not taking your kids to soccer practice is completely insane if, in fact, you genuinely believe that abortion is murder, which Harsanyi does not, no matter what he says or even thinks.

There is certainly hypocrisy involved. For many of them, "winning" in a political sense is more important. As I've made clear before, I'm not an ardent pro-choicer and I'm probably to the right of most Democrats on the issue. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to blindly support a candidate on the basis of that issue, if that candidate is morally flawed and controversial in their own right. That is the case with Walker here.

[Calthrina950]

This is going from bad to worse

Reporter: You said that if this did happen, there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Walker: Wait, I never said it.

Reporter: You said it this morning on Hugh Hewitt's show.

Republicans should cut Walker loose at this point, but they will not. Many of them are doubling down on their support for him, as they see Walker as a reliable vote for their policy priorities. This is precisely the reason why Trump overwhelmingly won the white evangelical vote, and the votes of most Republicans who did not like him personally.

They believed that policy was more important than morality. And this is why Walker will still garner ~45% or more of the vote in Georgia, and why the race could still be headed to a runoff. Why would a Republican voter abandon Walker for this scandal when they see Warnock and Democrats as promoting abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars?

Walker needs more than just the GOP to get to 45%, though. Independents will now be the key to this.

Are you saying that Walker could fall into the lower 40s? That would imply Warnock is winning by double digits, which I don't believe is possible. We're not going to see a Todd Akin electoral outcome here.

I'm not saying it will happen, but something like 52-44-3 isn't out of the question.

Perhaps not, but I'll believe it when I see it. My faith in voters certainly isn't that great these days.

[Calthrina950]

This is going from bad to worse

Reporter: You said that if this did happen, there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Walker: Wait, I never said it.

Reporter: You said it this morning on Hugh Hewitt's show.

Republicans should cut Walker loose at this point, but they will not. Many of them are doubling down on their support for him, as they see Walker as a reliable vote for their policy priorities. This is precisely the reason why Trump overwhelmingly won the white evangelical vote, and the votes of most Republicans who did not like him personally.

They believed that policy was more important than morality. And this is why Walker will still garner ~45% or more of the vote in Georgia, and why the race could still be headed to a runoff. Why would a Republican voter abandon Walker for this scandal when they see Warnock and Democrats as promoting abortion on demand with taxpayer dollars?

This kind of goes to show that many of the most annoying pro-lifers like baseballcrank and his ilk at the National Review/Federalist are straight up lying when they say they think abortion is murdering a baby. I should know, I know many people who genuinely believe this. Like, I believe they think it's bad, but it is simply not the case that they genuinely believe that a zygote is equivalent to a baby.

The reason I know this is that they find it exceedingly easy to vote for someone who they ostensibly believe financed the murder of his infant child and is pretty transparently not repentant. Like, you can justify it if you believe that Warnock will kill more babies indirectly, but none of them seem particularly concerned about wrestling with this at all. I mean, check out this quote from David Harsanyi for the Federalist:

"Without the slightest hesitation, I would support a sociopathic constitutionalist, prone to debauchery and lying, over a chaste family man who believes in a collectivist or authoritarian philosophy. The latter’s bad ideas have generational consequences. I don’t care if he takes his kids to soccer practice every day."

This is the type of argument you make to justify, like, voting for Bob Menendez despite his corruption or voting for David Vitter despite his soliciting a prostitute. Comparing infanticide to not taking your kids to soccer practice is completely insane if, in fact, you genuinely believe that abortion is murder, which Harsanyi does not, no matter what he says or even thinks.

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?

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?

[Calthrina950]

Even if Walker ends up winning, what I'll never fully understand is this: Georgia Republicans were not short on options. They've still got a wide bench. And they went with Herschel Walker. Why?

He played college football and he's Black. In the eyes of the GOP that's all you need.

And he had Trump's endorsement. So that's another factor that worked in his favor.

[Calthrina950]

Walker will still get votes from the Christian Right because of his policies, not his actions

This is why I think Walker will still get ~45% or so of the vote in Georgia at the end. This is not a Todd Akin situation, where he would lose by double digits - a scenario that might have happened 20 or 30 years ago, but is not possible now, due to increased polarization. But I think that this move on the part of evangelicals could be one of the reasons why religiosity in the United States is declining, as many younger people view them as hypocrites who don't actually live up to their moral standards.

[Calthrina950]

Walker will still get votes from the Christian Right because of his policies, not his actions

This is why I think Walker will still get ~45% or so of the vote in Georgia at the end. This is not a Todd Akin situation, where he would lose by double digits - a scenario that might have happened 20 or 30 years ago, but is not possible now, due to increased polarization. But I think that this move on the part of evangelicals could be one of the reasons why religiosity in the United States is declining, as many younger people view them as hypocrites who don't actually live up to their moral standards.

Todd Akin would win if the identical situation happened today, though. That kind of comment isn't damaging to Republicans anymore.

I'm certainly aware that Akin (who's now deceased) would win in today's partisan environment. That lends even further credence to my argument that Walker, if he loses, won't lose by more than a few percentage points.

[Calthrina950]

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.

You are certainly correct. The vast majority of Democrats would still vote for a controversial candidate, even if such candidate (like Walker may) loses thanks to more moderate members of the party and to independent voters who couldn't stomach such a candidate's scandals.

[Calthrina950]

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.

You are certainly correct. The vast majority of Democrats would still vote for a controversial candidate, even if such candidate (like Walker may) loses thanks to more moderate members of the party and to independent voters who couldn't stomach such a candidate's scandals.

Just next door Matthews has said much less and has been called on to resign and drop out by multiple Dems, including Gov candidate Cunningham.

Granted, Menendez still being in the senate can be used as a counter on that, but clearly it's not universal among Dems as it seems to be with Rs.

I would agree, and I do recall that Alvin Greene, who was Jim DeMint's opponent in 2010, received only 27.65%, with Tom Clements, the Green Party nominee, receiving 9.21% (almost all of which would have gone to a Generic D nominee). Perhaps we could see something like that again in SC? I wonder if Scott will reach the 60% mark again, as he did in 2014 and 2016. I have a feeling that he won't, but he should get into the upper 50s at least.

[Calthrina950]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

The article has solid receipts and on the record quotes; what are your specific problems with the article?

Any source that is not from one of the mainstream media outlets is regarded with great skepticism on this forum.

[Calthrina950]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

The article has solid receipts and on the record quotes; what are your specific problems with the article?

Any source that is not from one of the mainstream media outlets is regarded with great skepticism on this forum.

It's almost like people value credibility.

Sure, but there seems to be a double standard on this forum with regards to stories that might be damaging to one party or the other.