Dennis Prager had a Townhall article today, "To All Those Who 'Vote For the Man, Not the Party'." Prager points out that most elected officials vote with their party on the vast majority of votes. The way Democrats stick together as a nearly unanimous unity block for SCOTUS nominations, Budget Negotiations, and major court decisions are prime examples of that. Consequently, any Democratic Senator elected in Georgia (or anywhere) is likely to do that. So the real issue for voters is whether they prefer Democratic or Republican policies, because as Prager points out, there is a major policy gap between the two parties.
It is questionable that distancing oneself from Trump (policy wise) is the best strategy in GA or in other states. For example, Trump won GA 50.44 to 45.35 in 2016 while Kemp only beat Abrams 50.2 to 48.8. Never Trump voters may not like it, but Trump consistently has about 90-95% approval from Republicans. This suggests his policies are in line with the bulk of the Republican party, while Biden's policies are a virtual political opposite of what was pre-Trump conservatism (e.g., his supporting abortion, gun-control, anti-constitutional-judges, etc.) It is very possible Trump may lose a close election, just as 55K votes would have made Abrams governor of GA instead of Kemp. But if one isn't willing to fight for political policies one's party supports, what is the purpose of voting and/or running for office?
I really do disagree with this one. In Georgia in 2016, Johnny Isakson got more votes and a bigger win than Trump. In 2018, it was very clear Trump's endorsement dragged down Kemp and as Kemp has established his own identity, he's doing better in the polls. While there are some states, like South Carolina, where riding Trump coattails help, there are others like Georgia where establishing one's own identity actually improves a person's standing above the President.
GA is your state and you may be right. But there was certainly a strong Never Trump movement in 2016 that has arguably shrunk in size since then (although not in dollars gathered in from progressive billionaires). In 2018, Kemp did get about 110K less votes than Trump in 2016. As far as I know, Trump has never failed to endorse any Republican, and according to Kemp, Trump's endorsement helped him to win, even if he took steps to distance himself from Trump. As you know, the US is starkly divided between Trump-haters and Trump-lovers (with you in the middle), and I believe a connection to Trump both gains and loses voters. Because the value of Trump's endorsement wasn't on the ballot (positive or negative), it is hard to say what impact it had. We will both know more about that in another month or so. Best wishes!
Actually, Kemp won the early vote in Georgia 2 to 1, which strongly suggests he was winning without the President's endorsement. It boosted his margins undoubtedly though.
My primary point was that voting for one of today's Democrats to be a Georgia Senator or a Georgia Governor or President because one doesn't like Trump is arguably policy-insanity. In the past, that wasn't necessarily the case, as the party division over various political policies were more blurred than they are today and there was some degree of bidirectional bipartisanship (other than to keep raising the US debt). I know that in Germany, they elect parties and not individual candidates. But both systems have their flaws as governments are only as good as the flawed people that establish/elect them.
Why, then, is Kelly Loeffler sending out campaign mailings touting her as the only senators who has voted 100% with Trump?
First, Trump doesn’t get to vote in Congress. Secondly, if he did, who would be proud to admit that?
Who the heck is running her campaign?
She's doing it because she wants to consolidate Republicans to get into a runoff. She's essentially running like the runoff is a Republican primary.
Dennis Prager had a Townhall article today, "To All Those Who 'Vote For the Man, Not the Party'." Prager points out that most elected officials vote with their party on the vast majority of votes. The way Democrats stick together as a nearly unanimous unity block for SCOTUS nominations, Budget Negotiations, and major court decisions are prime examples of that. Consequently, any Democratic Senator elected in Georgia (or anywhere) is likely to do that. So the real issue for voters is whether they prefer Democratic or Republican policies, because as Prager points out, there is a major policy gap between the two parties.
It is questionable that distancing oneself from Trump (policy wise) is the best strategy in GA or in other states. For example, Trump won GA 50.44 to 45.35 in 2016 while Kemp only beat Abrams 50.2 to 48.8. Never Trump voters may not like it, but Trump consistently has about 90-95% approval from Republicans. This suggests his policies are in line with the bulk of the Republican party, while Biden's policies are a virtual political opposite of what was pre-Trump conservatism (e.g., his supporting abortion, gun-control, anti-constitutional-judges, etc.) It is very possible Trump may lose a close election, just as 55K votes would have made Abrams governor of GA instead of Kemp. But if one isn't willing to fight for political policies one's party supports, what is the purpose of voting and/or running for office?
I really do disagree with this one. In Georgia in 2016, Johnny Isakson got more votes and a bigger win than Trump. In 2018, it was very clear Trump's endorsement dragged down Kemp and as Kemp has established his own identity, he's doing better in the polls. While there are some states, like South Carolina, where riding Trump coattails help, there are others like Georgia where establishing one's own identity actually improves a person's standing above the President.
GA is your state and you may be right. But there was certainly a strong Never Trump movement in 2016 that has arguably shrunk in size since then (although not in dollars gathered in from progressive billionaires). In 2018, Kemp did get about 110K less votes than Trump in 2016. As far as I know, Trump has never failed to endorse any Republican, and according to Kemp, Trump's endorsement helped him to win, even if he took steps to distance himself from Trump. As you know, the US is starkly divided between Trump-haters and Trump-lovers (with you in the middle), and I believe a connection to Trump both gains and loses voters. Because the value of Trump's endorsement wasn't on the ballot (positive or negative), it is hard to say what impact it had. We will both know more about that in another month or so. Best wishes!
Actually, Kemp won the early vote in Georgia 2 to 1, which strongly suggests he was winning without the President's endorsement. It boosted his margins undoubtedly though.
My primary point was that voting for one of today's Democrats to be a Georgia Senator or a Georgia Governor or President because one doesn't like Trump is arguably policy-insanity. In the past, that wasn't necessarily the case, as the party division over various political policies were more blurred than they are today and there was some degree of bidirectional bipartisanship (other than to keep raising the US debt). I know that in Germany, they elect parties and not individual candidates. But both systems have their flaws as governments are only as good as the flawed people that establish/elect them.