Could Elizabeth Cheney siphon enough votes?

QP! said:
Yup.

In the ratings that score Republican conservatives by votes and policy positions Liz was amongst the most conservative and republican of any one in the party.

Trump and the Maga's revel in announcing they are not republicans, in the way the party existed prior, which was exemplified by Reagan, Bush, McCain type republicanism.

So the Trumpers are literally Republicans in name only. Or RINOs. And there is nothing wrong with that. If they want to say 'we thought the party needed a wholesale change to better reflect todays voters', then own it.

But instead, because the Magat style Trumpism requires them hate and slander everyone who disagrees with them, they have use every insult they can think of including calling them RINO's when that could not be further from the truth.

Nothing outs how much someone has gone full Magat, then the reflexive need to attack and deride any true republican simply because they refuse to follow the Magat path, instead of just saying 'they are yesterdays party and left behind', which is the accurate assessment.
Click to expand...

No, the accurate assessment is that Cheney fell apart by her opposition to Trump. Like it or not, her adamant opposition to all things Trump was her undoing. The straw that broke the camel's back was her willingness to join the Jan 6 inquisition committee. Not only did she have to buck Republican leadership who were boycotting the committee over the Democrat's refusal to seat the Republican's pick, but she willingly joined Democrats without raising so much as one objection to anything the committee did.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/oct/17/what-wyoming-really-thinks-of-liz-cheney/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...giggle-over-their-hatred-of-trump/ar-AA1lecrC
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/20/republicans-2022-campaigns-00018591
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/liz-cheney-no-republican-says-wyoming-gop.html

Cheney broke with the Republican party entirely to take on Trump, and for that she got her ass handed to her come reelection. Even other Republican-lite types like Romney or McCain knew better than buck their own party's leadership and throw in with something purely Democrat because they knew there'd be backlash from both their party and voters. Kinzinger, from Illinois was less vulnerable in this respect and Cheney if she were a rep from New York or Massachusetts might have pulled it off, but not from Wyoming. Of course, Democrats threw Kinzinger under the bus when they redrew districts in Illinois and eliminated his making his reelection a virtual impossibility.

You and I can disagree over the value and objectivity of the Jan 6 committee, but you can't over it being a wholly and totally Democrat machination. The two token Republicans on it were for show. There was nothing "bipartisan" about it. Say what you will about Trump, my and your position on him isn't the point here. It was Cheney's willingness to openly and totally join Democrats on taking Trump down that did her in.

For that, Cheney got the boot and she's pretty much done as a Republican politician.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
RFK has some appeal to militant Greenies on the left, but they are a miniscule part of the spectrum. To most of us, he's an anti-vaxxer conspiracy kook. Ironically, that attracts RW fringers too. IMO he's not much of a factor for either party.

Manchin has little to no appeal to LW voters despite the (D) after his name. The D stands for DINO. He's anti-abortion, pro-fossil fuel and anti-green energy.
Click to expand...

RFk is more likely to syphon off some fringe of Trump support from the anti vax, CTers.

Joe Manchin, is corporatists thru and thru, whose biggest achievement is enriching himself. He is also 76 years old, so is not an answer for those who want someone younger. He could draw a small percent of 'anyone but Trump voters' who really were struggling to vote Biden, but i think it is very small as that same group would likely realize a vote for Manchin is a vote for Trump.

Cornel West is the real danger to syphon votes from Bidens coalition. He could appeal to a significant number of young people and black voters in key swing States were they make the difference.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, the accurate assessment is that Cheney fell apart by her opposition to Trump. Like it or not, her adamant opposition to all things Trump was her undoing. The straw that broke the camel's back was her willingness to join the Jan 6 inquisition committee. Not only did she have to buck Republican leadership who were boycotting the committee over the Democrat's refusal to seat the Republican's pick, but she willingly joined Democrats without raising so much as one objection to anything the committee did.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/oct/17/what-wyoming-really-thinks-of-liz-cheney/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...giggle-over-their-hatred-of-trump/ar-AA1lecrC
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/20/republicans-2022-campaigns-00018591
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/liz-cheney-no-republican-says-wyoming-gop.html

Cheney broke with the Republican party entirely to take on Trump, and for that she got her ass handed to her come reelection. Even other Republican-lite types like Romney or McCain knew better than buck their own party's leadership and throw in with something purely Democrat because they knew there'd be backlash from both their party and voters. Kinzinger, from Illinois was less vulnerable in this respect and Cheney if she were a rep from New York or Massachusetts might have pulled it off, but not from Wyoming. Of course, Democrats threw Kinzinger under the bus when they redrew districts in Illinois and eliminated his making his reelection a virtual impossibility.

You and I can disagree over the value and objectivity of the Jan 6 committee, but you can't over it being a wholly and totally Democrat machination. The two token Republicans on it were for show. There was nothing "bipartisan" about it. Say what you will about Trump, my and your position on him isn't the point here. It was Cheney's willingness to openly and totally join Democrats on taking Trump down that did her in.

For that, Cheney got the boot and she's pretty much done as a Republican politician.
Click to expand...

Look, no one is in denial that you absorb all derp spin. What you say above is BS and spin.

I will cliff note the facts:

- McCarthy's sole goal was to disrupt and ensure no workable committee would ever be convened
- The Dems (in what the ruling party NEVER does) accepted a Republican proposal for a true 50/50 investigation, with both sides having subpoena which was about to move forward and McCarthy deliberately canned it
- McCarthy then tried to pretend he was open to another one but only if key suspects of Jan6th, like Jim Jordan, were put on the committee knowing that would RIGHTLY unacceptable. You do not put George Santos on the ethics committee looking into George Santos.
- Even if you do not like Cheney and Adam going on the committee, you cannot show one iota of evidence that the committee or its findings were unfair, biases or wrong. Almost all the data, if not all the data, they gathered was from Republicans, in States and in the Trump admin, who all admitted they voted for Trump, wanted him to win, and yet witnesses him doing these things leading up to Jan 6th.

How Kevin McCarthy tried to sabotage the House January 6 investigation
Of course McCarthy never wanted a real investigation into the insurrection he encouraged.


House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s months-long campaign to undermine the committee House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) set up to investigate the January 6 insurrection finally came to a culmination on Wednesday, when he announced he won’t be nominating any Republicans to serve on it after all....

McCarthy rejected a bipartisan committee, now claims he wants a bipartisan committee

In May, the top Democrat and Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee — Reps. Bernie Thompson (MS) and John Katko (NY), respectively — hammered out a deal for a January 6 committee that had the features McCarthy now says he wants: equal representation of Democrats and Republicans, and Republican veto power over subpoenas.

But McCarthy torpedoed that deal..
Click to expand...
 
Biden is up against Trump:


87% Are voting Biden
6% Are voting for Charles Manson
2% Are voting Trump
5% Undecided between Putin or Marjory Taylor Green
 
QP! said:
Look, no one is in denial that you absorb all derp spin. What you say above is BS and spin.

I will cliff note the facts:

- McCarthy's sole goal was to disrupt and ensure no workable committee would ever be convened
- The Dems (in what the ruling party NEVER does) accepted a Republican proposal for a true 50/50 investigation, with both sides having subpoena which was about to move forward and McCarthy deliberately canned it
- McCarthy then tried to pretend he was open to another one but only if key suspects of Jan6th, like Jim Jordan, were put on the committee knowing that would RIGHTLY unacceptable. You do not put George Santos on the ethics committee looking into George Santos.
- Even if you do not like Cheney and Adam going on the committee, you cannot show one iota of evidence that the committee or its findings were unfair, biases or wrong. Almost all the data, if not all the data, they gathered was from Republicans, in States and in the Trump admin, who all admitted they voted for Trump, wanted him to win, and yet witnesses him doing these things leading up to Jan 6th.
Click to expand...

I'd say it was 90% Pelosi's failure that resulted in the Jan 6 Committee having no impact on anything. People tuned it out, and the political partisans on both sides were unswayed by its findings and actions. In the mid-terms it's interesting to note that 4 of 9 members lost reelection, both Republicans and two Democrats. On the whole, the outcome was somewhere between irrelevant and disastrous.

It was Pelosi's insistence on being the arbiter of who would be on the committee and rebuffing the Republican's choices.

The bottom line is that for justice to be done, it not only has to be just, but the appearance of fairness and justice has to be maintained. If what people see is taken as unjust on appearance, then the outcome is in doubt even it 100% just and fair. Thus, the Jan 6 committee was doomed to failure before they even started, and that failure is squarely Pelosi's fault.

If anything, I would say that Pelosi was far too full of herself and overrated her importance and power politically.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...an-6-committee-undermined-its-own-legitimacy/
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'd say it was 90% Pelosi's failure that resulted in the Jan 6 Committee having no impact on anything. People tuned it out, and the political partisans on both sides were unswayed by its findings and actions. In the mid-terms it's interesting to note that 4 of 9 members lost reelection, both Republicans and two Democrats. On the whole, the outcome was somewhere between irrelevant and disastrous.

It was Pelosi's insistence on being the arbiter of who would be on the committee and rebuffing the Republican's choices.

The bottom line is that for justice to be done, it not only has to be just, but the appearance of fairness and justice has to be maintained. If what people see is taken as unjust on appearance, then the outcome is in doubt even it 100% just and fair. Thus, the Jan 6 committee was doomed to failure before they even started, and that failure is squarely Pelosi's fault.

If anything, I would say that Pelosi was far too full of herself and overrated her importance and power politically.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...an-6-committee-undermined-its-own-legitimacy/
Click to expand...

Again we know the Derp position so you do not need to repeat it.

The Jan6th hearings were drawing in viewers akin to top shows, meaning a vast number of citizens were educated about Trumps crimes. SOmething you would not like or support, we know.

And you can repeating your lie but the Dems conceded something no party in power does with the Bipartisan committed established by both a Republican and Dem which McCarthy then vetoing it despite it having all the key components he demanded.

Pelosi insisting that key suspects and someone who was likely to be identified as co-conspirator to Trump, such as Jordan, should not even need to be suggested.

If McCarthy made it a requirement that George Santos be on the ethics committee investigating George Santos then you know he was never serious from the beginning.
 
Walt said:
1% would completely tilt the election, and I cannot see how she could not get 4%.



She does not have to win. Getting 1% would be enough to guarantee trump loses.

She got 29% in Wyoming... I think she can get 1% nationwide.
Click to expand...

Yup
 
QP! said:
Again we know the Derp position so you do not need to repeat it.

The Jan6th hearings were drawing in viewers akin to top shows, meaning a vast number of citizens were educated about Trumps crimes. SOmething you would not like or support, we know.

And you can repeating your lie but the Dems conceded something no party in power does with the Bipartisan committed established by both a Republican and Dem which McCarthy then vetoing it despite it having all the key components he demanded.

Pelosi insisting that key suspects and someone who was likely to be identified as co-conspirator to Trump, such as Jordan, should not even need to be suggested.

If McCarthy made it a requirement that George Santos be on the ethics committee investigating George Santos then you know he was never serious from the beginning.
Click to expand...

You are fucking insane.

The Jan 6 committee was a one-sided narrative. There was no cross-examination of evidence. Evidence that was exculpatory to even the slightest degree was omitted. The public isn't nearly as stupid as the Democrats thought and for the most part the whole proceeding was tuned out as being the show trial that it was. It had nearly zero impact on public opinion. If anything, given the smackdown committee members got at the polls, it was counterproductive to their own careers to participate in it.

The vast number of citizens paid the whole thing scant attention. They weren't "educated" about anything and saw the proceedings as little more than the show trial they were.

Say what you want, but those are the facts. There was no defense, no cross examination, and the evidence presented was cherry picked to favor the prosecution so-to-speak. In every aspect, the Jan 6 committee failed.
 
Jarod said:
Yup
Click to expand...

I do not know if Cheney will enter the race. It does seem like a lot of trouble to go through for a guaranteed loss. She might just do it to keep trump from being elected.

But if she does enter the election, she will pull enough votes away from trump that it will be almost impossible for him to win. She has no chance of winning, but she could make it so trump has no chance of winning.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The Jan 6 committee was a one-sided narrative. There was no cross-examination of evidence. Evidence that was exculpatory to even the slightest degree was omitted.
Click to expand...

There have been thousands of trials, with cross-examinations and discovery. How have they been going for you?
 
Walt said:
There have been thousands of trials, with cross-examinations and discovery. How have they been going for you?
Click to expand...

wtf-memes-13-1.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
wtf-memes-13-1.jpg
Click to expand...

A trial is where both sides present evidence, and then a jury or judge makes a judgement. There have been thousands of these over the riots, including many where the defendants decided they had no evidence, and just made a deal.

I am surprised you have never heard of a trial. Maybe take a civics lesson and get back to us.
 
Walt said:
A trial is where both sides present evidence, and then a jury or judge makes a judgement. There have been thousands of these over the riots, including many where the defendants decided they had no evidence, and just made a deal.

I am surprised you have never heard of a trial. Maybe take a civics lesson and get back to us.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Jan 6 committee?
 
Walt said:
I do not know if Cheney will enter the race. It does seem like a lot of trouble to go through for a guaranteed loss. She might just do it to keep trump from being elected.

But if she does enter the election, she will pull enough votes away from trump that it will be almost impossible for him to win. She has no chance of winning, but she could make it so trump has no chance of winning.
Click to expand...

Who would vote for her? I sure as hell wouldn't. Will you?
 
Walt said:
1% would completely tilt the election, and I cannot see how she could not get 4%.



She does not have to win. Getting 1% would be enough to guarantee trump loses.

She got 29% in Wyoming... I think she can get 1% nationwide.
Click to expand...

It seems to be a lot of Republicans, not a majority are looking for someone other than Trump to vote for. Where is Chris Christie’s 6% going?
 
RB 60 said:
Who would vote for her? I sure as hell wouldn't. Will you?
Click to expand...

About half the Republicans do not want trump, but could never vote for Biden. Many will vote for trump anyway, but some will vote for anyone other than trump. Remember, it only needs to be 1% and trump is toast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top