urbanSTL

John Wood, a former lawyer at the January 6th committee, announced he's running as an independent conservative candidate for senate. More or less what John Danforth wants.

^ Perfect example of what’s wrong with America rn. Moderates preaching “both sides” need to have the swift kick of consequences to help them see straight.

Quotes from this “independent”.

One side we have the minor act of encouraging murder of political enemies, storming of capitals. No big deal.



On the other side we have the terrifying democratic leadership aligned behind a popular domestic policy that they lack the political strength to even deliver.

I don't see Wood's candidacy gaining much traction. This isn't New England or Alaska--where independent candidates have won statewide races. 

And his whole rationale for running seems to be on the assumption that Greitens wins the GOP primary. What if one of the other far right pro-Trump candidates in the nominee--will he drop out because their ads aren't quite as distasteful?

My guess is he approved of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Will be hard for him to pick up true independents in the STL and KC burbs if that is the case. 

If the 3 options in November are Greitens (GOP) Wood (I) and Busch (DEM) i think he can pull 10-15% of GOP voters and you can end up with Busch winning something like 44%-41%-15%

StlToday - Parson signs Missouri budget, but trims $640 million, including money for tax rebates

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 1eb9e.html

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2022

If the 3 options in November are Greitens (GOP) Wood (I) and Busch (DEM) i think he can pull 10-15% of GOP voters and you can end up with Busch winning something like 44%-41%-15%

Certainly possible. A lot of Republicans HATE Greitens and won't lift a finger to help him if he's the nominee.

I have to wonder what impact the overturn of Roe will have on the evangelical vote. Without the abortion boogeyman they've been running against for decades will turnout be down among that demographic?

It definitely won't be among the suburban and urban pro choice voters.

Baltimore Jack wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2022

If the 3 options in November are Greitens (GOP) Wood (I) and Busch (DEM) i think he can pull 10-15% of GOP voters and you can end up with Busch winning something like 44%-41%-15%

Certainly possible. A lot of Republicans HATE Greitens and won't lift a finger to help him if he's the nominee.

I have to wonder what impact the overturn of Roe will have on the evangelical vote. Without the abortion boogeyman they've been running against for decades will turnout be down among that demographic?

It definitely won't be among the suburban and urban pro choice voters.

I wonder about that. The other way to look at it is, Republicans are delivering big to their voters while Democrats are using their current majority to do nothing, so Republicans will have a big motivation advantage. Liberal voters might not want to spend hours standing in line to vote in an unfair system because the Democratic majority didn't feel like passing a new VRA. National Democrats are claiming they need like 67 senators to do anything about abortion, which is essentially an impossible threshold, so what's the point of voting for them?

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

Baltimore Jack wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jun 30, 2022

If the 3 options in November are Greitens (GOP) Wood (I) and Busch (DEM) i think he can pull 10-15% of GOP voters and you can end up with Busch winning something like 44%-41%-15%

Certainly possible. A lot of Republicans HATE Greitens and won't lift a finger to help him if he's the nominee.

I have to wonder what impact the overturn of Roe will have on the evangelical vote. Without the abortion boogeyman they've been running against for decades will turnout be down among that demographic?

It definitely won't be among the suburban and urban pro choice voters.

I wonder about that. The other way to look at it is, Republicans are delivering big to their voters while Democrats are using their current majority to do nothing, so Republicans will have a big motivation advantage. Liberal voters might not want to spend hours standing in line to vote in an unfair system because the Democratic majority didn't feel like passing a new VRA. National Democrats are claiming they need like 67 senators to do anything about abortion, which is essentially an impossible threshold, so what's the point of voting for them?

*60 Senators.
The counter argument would be that democrats have woken up to how important the courts are, which now only needs a simple majority so maybe they have found new reason to be motivated (no idea if this is true, just presenting another take)

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 01, 2022

*60 Senators.

Well if you want to fix the courts you have to pack the court, so you need extra senators to account for conservatives like Manchin and Sinema. And then there's also Feinstein, Coons, Tester, King, Shaheen, Carper, Durbin, Hassan, etc. Once you've added enough good Democrats to cancel out the bad ones you need like 94 Democrats in the Senate.

_nomad_ wrote:The counter argument would be that democrats have woken up to how important the courts are,

If the supposed experts on government only just realized that 50 years of liberal government rests on court cases because Congress never bothered to write anything into law, they're too stupid to support. In fact voters have been forcing them for years to campaign on enshrining RvW as law, and whenever they get elected it falls by the wayside. Ultimately I guess it hangs on the degree to which voters have internalized the uselessness of the party.

^The problem with this is that you have to convince someone to move to Montana. It's lovely to visit, but how the heck do you actually live up there?

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2022

If Democrats wanted to, they could fairly easily take the Senate by just using that infinite money machine they've got for supporting their fuddy-duddy candidates and use it to help pay for a few hundred thousand of their voters to move to the low-population red states that hold an unreasonable amount of power in the Senate, but can't have actual solutions from the Platitudes Party, now can we?

Meh. At this point I'm just waiting for the inevitable Civil War 2: Supreme Court Boogaloo. 

Rev up those Mutual Aid Networks, y'all!

If they wanted to they could just give people money, and win votes by improving their lives. But helping constituents would be worse than losing.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2022

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2022

If Democrats wanted to, they could fairly easily take the Senate by just using that infinite money machine they've got for supporting their fuddy-duddy candidates and use it to help pay for a few hundred thousand of their voters to move to the low-population red states that hold an unreasonable amount of power in the Senate, but can't have actual solutions from the Platitudes Party, now can we?

Meh. At this point I'm just waiting for the inevitable Civil War 2: Supreme Court Boogaloo. 

Rev up those Mutual Aid Networks, y'all!

If they wanted to they could just give people money, and win votes by improving their lives. But helping constituents would be worse than losing.

Ha, if that worked this state would be going blue based on medicaid expansion and defeating right to work. This is America, good policy doesn't translate to votes when people would rather vote against their own self-interests because of identity politics and "moral issues" or whatever makes them feel good.

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2022

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2022

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2022

If Democrats wanted to, they could fairly easily take the Senate by just using that infinite money machine they've got for supporting their fuddy-duddy candidates and use it to help pay for a few hundred thousand of their voters to move to the low-population red states that hold an unreasonable amount of power in the Senate, but can't have actual solutions from the Platitudes Party, now can we?

Meh. At this point I'm just waiting for the inevitable Civil War 2: Supreme Court Boogaloo. 

Rev up those Mutual Aid Networks, y'all!

If they wanted to they could just give people money, and win votes by improving their lives. But helping constituents would be worse than losing.

Ha, if that worked this state would be going blue based on medicaid expansion and defeating right to work.  This is America, good policy doesn't translate to votes when people would rather vote against their own self-interests because of identity politics and "moral issues" or whatever makes them feel good.

I don't remember getting any checks in the mail when we had a Democratic state government. And while you might credit local Democrats for defeating RTW, nationally the Democrats have been apathetic to worker rights since Clinton and the New Democrats took over the party. Still waiting on card check.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2022

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2022

If they wanted to they could just give people money, and win votes by improving their lives. But helping constituents would be worse than losing.

Ha, if that worked this state would be going blue based on medicaid expansion and defeating right to work.  This is America, good policy doesn't translate to votes when people would rather vote against their own self-interests because of identity politics and "moral issues" or whatever makes them feel good.

I don't remember getting any checks in the mail when we had a Democratic state government. And while you might credit local Democrats for defeating RTW, nationally the Democrats have been apathetic to worker rights since Clinton and the New Democrats took over the party. Still waiting on card check.

When have we had a Democratic state government anytime in recent memory? I don't remember getting checks from the state government at any point regardless of who's in power and why would they? Aside from emergency stimulus the purpose of government is managing the state and its programs, not to regularly pay people. I thought you wanted good policy and governance in general, not just a check made out to you personally. If you're defining good government by the size of a cash payout, you're going to waiting awhile. As to the last point, we can sit here and complain about apathy of democrats toward workers rights, but it is indisputable that apathy has been a hell of a lot better than actively working to take away those rights.

^The democrats had control of the legislature for most of my youth and several times in the 90s. The Republicans really began to gain control with the enactment of term limits about 1990 or so. (And seeing the debacle that's made of state government has a lot to do with my opposition to the idea. It just built a revolving door between the legislature and the lobbyists.) In 2000 the state senate was briefly split dead evenly and they formed a power sharing agreement. Democrats held most statewide offices even as recently as 2016: Jay Nixon in the governor's manse, Koster as the AG, Kander as the Secretary of State, and even McCaskill in the senate. Our lurch to the right is both more recent and more dramatic than many people realize. There's long been a dislike for St. Louis in the rest of the state, but there were still a lot of rural Democrats until fairly recently.

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

As to the last point, we can sit here and complain about apathy of democrats toward workers rights, but it is indisputable that apathy has been a hell of a lot better than actively working to take away those rights.

Is it better to diffuse worker activism with a bunch of meaningless gestures and symbolic handwaving? Isn't that like saying confessing to Good Cop is better than Bad Cop because he's more understanding?

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

As to the last point, we can sit here and complain about apathy of democrats toward workers rights, but it is indisputable that apathy has been a hell of a lot better than actively working to take away those rights.

Is it better to diffuse worker activism with a bunch of meaningless gestures and symbolic handwaving? Isn't that like saying confessing to Good Cop is better than Bad Cop because he's more understanding?

Yes doing nothing is better than active harm, I don't see how that's debatable. If I'm sick I'd rather someone did nothing than poison me or beat me with a stick. Do I wish more good was done? Sure, but I don't need to wait for that option to be available in order to vote against active harm. Confess to whoever you want, outcomes are different with different parties in charge regardless of whether it's your ideal.

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

outcomes are different with different parties in charge regardless of whether it's your ideal.

I honestly don't know how anyone can think that after the Democratic majority just let abortion rights and environmental regulations lapse while letting a million workers die from disease. Not to mention throwing trans rights under the bus.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 04, 2022

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

outcomes are different with different parties in charge regardless of whether it's your ideal.

I honestly don't know how anyone can think that after the Democratic majority just let abortion rights and environmental regulations lapse while letting a million workers die from disease. Not to mention throwing trans rights under the bus.

You're all over the place moving those goal posts around. I'm honestly not sure why you think the current congress is responsible for Supreme Court decisions, but I certainly know which party I want choosing judges to decide future decisions.

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 04, 2022

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 04, 2022

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2022

outcomes are different with different parties in charge regardless of whether it's your ideal.

I honestly don't know how anyone can think that after the Democratic majority just let abortion rights and environmental regulations lapse while letting a million workers die from disease.  Not to mention throwing trans rights under the bus.

You're all over the place moving those goal posts around. I'm honestly not sure why you think the current congress is responsible for Supreme Court decisions, but I certainly know which party I want choosing judges to decide future decisions.

Because the Supreme Court has essentially no power, particularly over Congress and the White House combined. The only reason you think they do is because Democrats use SCOTUS as their excuse to not do all the things they totally would do if they could, but they can't because of darn SCOTUS.

Remember when they were going to write Roe V Wade into law? Remember when they were going to pass card check? Remember when they were going to protect trans rights and immigrant rights against the bad guys? Remember when they were going to fight climate change? Remember COVID? Remember #MeToo? The Democratic party exists to channel leftism into useless symbolism and protect corporations.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 04, 2022

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jul 04, 2022

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jul 04, 2022

I honestly don't know how anyone can think that after the Democratic majority just let abortion rights and environmental regulations lapse while letting a million workers die from disease.  Not to mention throwing trans rights under the bus.

You're all over the place moving those goal posts around. I'm honestly not sure why you think the current congress is responsible for Supreme Court decisions, but I certainly know which party I want choosing judges to decide future decisions.

Because the Supreme Court has essentially no power, particularly over Congress and the White House combined. The only reason you think they do is because Democrats use SCOTUS as their excuse to not do all the things they totally would do if they could, but they can't because of darn SCOTUS.

Remember when they were going to write Roe V Wade into law? Remember when they were going to pass card check? Remember when they were going to protect trans rights and immigrant rights against the bad guys? Remember when they were going to fight climate change? Remember COVID? Remember #MeToo? The Democratic party exists to channel leftism into useless symbolism and protect corporations.

So you're blaming something's failure on the people that voted for it rather than the people that voted against it? That doesn't make sense