Soros does have PACs but he is the exception where he does put a lot of his own money into them at times.
You have no explanation so far why mitch sent 9 million to Murkowski and zero to Tshibaka. They're both Republicans running for the same seat. Either split the cash to both candidates (stupid) or send the 9 million to a R candidate that's running against a democrat
The reason I bring Trump into is that he was very active in the primary. He basically told primary voters to reject McConnell's candidates and choose his instead. They listened to him, and then he was nowhere to be found. If you want to make a football comparison, it's more like this. The opponent is at 3rd and 30 deep in their own territory. The head coach says to play it safe and play for the deep pass. The defensive line coach tells the players the head coach is full of **** and tells them the offense is going to run up the middle. The defense believes the defensive line coach and stacks the line of scrimmage like they would on their own goal line. The offensive predictably throws a pass and runs it in for a touchdown. Then the defensive line coach and the players point the finger at the head coach and say, "hey, you're the head coach. This loss is on you."
I have an explanation. Murkowski is loyal to McConnell. I wouldn't have done it and don't defend it at all, but it does make sense.
Uh, do you know much about football? Trump is nowhere to be found because the general election isn't his show.
It makes sense because political leaders help those who are loyal to them. "Makes sense" doesn't necessarily mean "morally right." Like I said, I wouldn't have helped Murkowski. However, politicians helping loyalists is common, normal, and does make sense.
Not to bust your bawls, but that's not what a leader does. In any industry. Mitch isn't looking forward, needs to go
That's arguable. However, aren't both of these guys claiming to be leaders? Trump wants to be the leader of the party, was its former nominee (and president), and intervened in the primary. Shouldn't there be an expectation that he'd stand by the nominees he told voters to choose over those that their more official leader suggested? Honestly, I don't see how you guys can disagree with that.
LOL. No. I haven't watched an American football game in 9 years, but I do know that 3rd and 30 is usually a passing down. I didn't see many runs up the middle in that scenario. Now we're getting somewhere, and that's sorta my point. He cared about dicking around in the primary, but he didn't seem to care much about actually winning general elections. Keep in mind is that the general election is where we decide whether a Democrat wins or a Republicans wins.
Deez's main point is a good one. Regardless of who is more responsible for the R's problems, people don't hold Trump accountable for his mistakes. Trump dips his toes in the pool. People jump in. But he takes them back out and doesn't follow through. Trump either needs to go all in or stay out. Even if he doesn't give his own money, he could have pressured McConnell to spend money to support the candidates he endorsed. Cocaine Mitch might not have done it but at the very least Trump should have fought more for his guys. McConnell and McCarthy both played personal politics with the 2022 election so that they could stay in power. To do that they had to dam up the red wave a bit.
Nobody would actually listen to the defensive line coach in this case. lol The actual election is run by the two top ranking remembers in congress, not Trump.
On a real football team, they wouldn't, but we did in the primary. And it doesn't have to be a line coach. It could be a drunk fan in the crowd. It really doesn't matter. No, it's run by the primary voters. They chose the nominees at Trump's recommendation.
McConnell should be serving the voters, correct? Then he should fund their choices for the success of the party In his world he's supporting his friends, not the will of the people. He has to go
I don't blame Trump for not giving Oz, Masters, Boulduc, etc. a bunch of money. I just think it's ridiculous to expect others to throw good money after bad when he wasn't willing to.
The only voters McConnell serves are the people of Kentucky. That's it. Every bit of power he has beyond that comes from the Republican delegation in the US Senate, and as much as I don't like it, that includes Lisa Murkowski. I'm sure he'd like someone who votes with him more often on the floor, but if he screws that up, it can backfire and put a Democrat in the seat (like happened in the at-large House seat from Alaska). Had there not been a rank choice system in AK, good chance he would have approached things differently. He may not have helped her primary opponent, to but he likely would have done less for her. Either way, no, I don't think he should blindly throw money at primary voters' choices. He had limited resources, and he should allocate where he thinks the GOP has he a meaningful chance of winning. That's why he was more winning to toss money at JD Vance (who was also a Trump candidate) than at Blake Masters. Show me a congressional leader who doesn't tend to support his allies. There's a reason why Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) chairs the House Appropriations Committee rather than Kay Granger (R-TX). Obviously, party affiliation is the short answer, but that's really a proxy for loyalty to the Speaker. DeLauro will vote to make Pelosi the Speaker and vote for a rules package that empowers her and her leadership team. Granger will not. Supporting those who support you is part of politics. It's not unique to Mitch McConnell, and respectfully, you're dreaming if you think you'll ever have a party leader who isn't that way. Rick Scott would be that way. Ted Cruz would be that way.
I'm the words of Steppenwolf, "I LIKE TO DREAM" I think before you pass on things will change. Has to. The republican party will always be sucking hind teat if they don't change very soon. In order to be most prominent (again)they can't continue to do business the mitch way. It's that simple.
I'm curious what will happen when Trump moves on or when he passes away. Who or what will be the scapegoat when we keep getting our asses handed to us?
Btw, the myth that Yee won treasurer of the state of AZ because she wasn't a Trumpster has been destroyed.
Sadly, "that's how things are done" will be the line (not taking a shot at deez here). It has to change. Same old same old denied us the senate and a stronger majority in the house
There are fair criticisms of McConnell. I don't deny that. However, if you're hoping for congressional leaders who don't reward loyalists, you'd be better off wishing for a real magic carpet (to keep the Steppenwolf reference going). It has been that way for as long as governments have existed, and it transcends ideology. Monarchs, democrats, fascists, communists, liberals, conservatives, moderates, westerners, easterners - makes no difference. Hard to imagine it changing anytime soon.
It isn't about being associated with Trump in any way at all. Few Republicans aren't. It also isn't about being conservative. There's a ******** narrative going around by actual RINOs that not staying out of the "culture war" hurt us. If that were true Kemp and Desantis would have lost or certainly wouldn't have done as well. It has to do with valuing Trump loyalty over candidate quality in states where we couldn't afford to do that like Arizona, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Georgia. A good candidate who is on good terms with Trump did fine.
A lot of good candidates who were not associated with Trump lost in the House too. Lots of weird math in this election especially in AZ where the candidates who rely on the down ballot vote outperformed the main candidates. You'll never convince me that the mine inspector in AZ got more votes than both governor candidates.
What is clear is that the Republican Party is fractured. There is a more populist, aggressive wing and there is the old, establishment wing. If establishment wing regains power of the Party, it should actually just die. Politics will go back to arguing vigorously over how quickly to kill the oil and gas industry, let in millions of immigrants, how much new dollars to print out to give to their friends, and which new war to start. Rs will act a bit more slowly and the Ds will scream for all of it tomorrow. Either way there will be new political system in the US. The shift will either occur within the Republican Party or within a new or current minor party.
Sometimes good candidates still lose. It depends on the race, who the opponent is, the dynamics of the race, what other races are on the same ticket, etc. It's not an exact science. It's a bit hard to compare statewide candidates with the congressional vote, because you don't have consistent opposition in congressional races. Some run unopposed or with token opposition, and that distorts the comparison quite a bit.
Agree x 3
