GA-SEN 2022 Megathread: Werewolves and Vampires

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I still expect Walker to prevail, since Trump's endorsement overrides all the local Republicans'.

Eh his endorsement helps but doesn’t always prevail over locals (see TX-06 special)

Specials are usually not the best benchmarks for this. Especially considering Georgia's track record with the last one that was high profile before the Senate

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Wonder if Ossoff campaigns for Warnock in next few weeks

they really had an interesting synergy in the specials.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

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.

Played college ball you know. Making the mother of all omelettes here… can’t uh… can’t fret over

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

This man needs mental help, not a senate seat. At this point I just feel bad for his family for having to deal with his issues.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

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.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

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 uppers 50s at least.

I know I'm writing in.

Off topic for the thread, but while Matthews is here,  I don't think anyone's brought it up but Matthews represents the same seat Scott did in the state house.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I'm expecting something in the realm of 52-48 for Warnock. 

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

"I don't even understand what he thinks he's saying" is a great example of a line in an ad almost certainly plucked directly from a focus group quote.

https://twitter.com/reverendwarnock/status/1596532507566133250?s=42&t=bAqEbM...

I'd have said "this man doesn't need a senate seat, he needs help."

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1597567950562672640

makes sense, this is definitely the biggest gap between the two. Warnock is a respectable pastor from MLK's old church, Walker is, well, Walker.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1597767177402486784

Republicans should be deeply embarrassed to vote for this man

Didn’t trump also basically destroy his own idea of a border wall in a speech? Something about “not being able to get down if you climb it… well, maybe a rope would work”

I don’t see this impacting much.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Solid, impactful ad. $6 Million ad buy, btw.

Or at least, as impactful as advertising can be these days.

I have to assume they deliberately chose that specific image of Walker's son with the Trump shirt on? Subtle way to say "this isn't about politics, it's about character" even if Trump isn't exactly of the highest moral character to begin with...

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

https://twitter.com/christos_ioa/status/1598174684184707072

That can't be serious?

Has to be a joke.  It's pretty funny, actually.

yeah, sounds a lot like "Apartment complex? I find it quite simple"

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Will Walker's belief that Werewolves are better win him the crucial furry vote?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1599428404532891649

As an atheist I do like seeing the religious left maybe making a resurgence in the states.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

They'd better have a needle. It's already inexcusable how bad their election interactives (if you can even call them that) have been this cycle. You can't even hover over counties to get detailed results?? I pay $52 a year for this sh*t.

Using the NYT 2022 results site on the phone actually allows you to click on things and is very accessible. Using the site on a computer is a disaster as there’s literally no way to see exact vote totals by county and you can’t hover or even click on counties/swing arrows. My guess is they just were having trouble doing the hover feature when creating the website and basically ran out of time to fix it.

Literally the 2012 NYT result site is more accessible.

I don't really understand why it feels like they reinvent their interface every cycle. Just using the old interface would be great. Of course, they're hardly the only ones, but it's still frustrating.

The graphic designers need to justify their continued salary.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Everyone comfortably seated? Got their beverages?

What's everyone drinking tonight? Rum and Diet Coke for me.

Tea, as always

Dr. Pepper at my local sports bar. They might have the results on the TV, if not I'll have my phone with me.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Gwinnett came in. 56% in at least. Probably EV?

68% Warnock
32% Walker

not good for Walker.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Cobb 85% in, Warnock at 80%.

How is this not game over?

Who cares if a couple bumf--k redneck counties with low turnout shifted 1 point right?

"Reverse-tradamus" indeed.

That's 100% an error. Turnout is way too low to be realistic.

I would say maybe they mistyped and it's 58% in but even that would be disastrous for Walker

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Jackson 55% in, 76-24 walker-warnock

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

The vampire vote just isn’t there for walker

#WerewolvesForWalker never got off the ground.

furries are overwhelmingly left-leaning anyway.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

The vampire vote just isn’t there for walker

#WerewolvesForWalker never got off the ground.

furries are overwhelmingly left-leaning anyway.

Yeah, they are left-leaning, but did they watch UGA games in the 80s?

most weren't even born.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

big dump in Clayton:
61% in, it's 91-9.

We don't even have anything from Bibb, DeKalb, or Cobb on NYT. I think it's pretty reasonable to say Warnock has been re-elected

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Cobb 24% in on NYT. 67-33.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

THE NEEDLE IS ALIVE

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

DeKalb finally reports and... it's only 5% of the county vote. 88-12.