UT-04/Mason-Dixon: Matheson in a tough fight for new seat

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

First, I want to thank JohnnyLongtorso, for taking an interest in my state's politics. It seems nobody cares about Utah politics (even most Utahns).

I'm in favor of none of them, since I think Matheson is essentially a republican-in-democrat clothing (as I call him), and of course the GOP candidates are all crazy (except maybe Mia Love, and even she's far too conservative for me).

I'm thinking Mia Love will eventually get the GOP nomination, simply because she has none of the negatives Wimmer and Sandstrom have (they're unacceptable to Salt Lake County for attempts at school vouchers and criminalizing miscarriage shenanigans, among others), and if she gets the nomination, she will probably have a good chance against Matheson.

I live in this district, but I honestly don't care who wins, since none of them will adequately represent me. I think I'll vote for the Justice Party guy running, because I frankly can't stand Matheson.

 

A vote for the Justice party is essentially a vote for the Republican candidate in much the same way that a vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 was essentially a vote for George W. Bush.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

First, I want to thank JohnnyLongtorso, for taking an interest in my state's politics. It seems nobody cares about Utah politics (even most Utahns).

I'm in favor of none of them, since I think Matheson is essentially a republican-in-democrat clothing (as I call him), and of course the GOP candidates are all crazy (except maybe Mia Love, and even she's far too conservative for me).

I'm thinking Mia Love will eventually get the GOP nomination, simply because she has none of the negatives Wimmer and Sandstrom have (they're unacceptable to Salt Lake County for attempts at school vouchers and criminalizing miscarriage shenanigans, among others), and if she gets the nomination, she will probably have a good chance against Matheson.

I live in this district, but I honestly don't care who wins, since none of them will adequately represent me. I think I'll vote for the Justice Party guy running, because I frankly can't stand Matheson.

 

A vote for the Justice party is essentially a vote for the Republican candidate in much the same way that a vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 was essentially a vote for George W. Bush.

Well, it's not as though Pioneer didn't have a point. A vote for Matheson is a vote for the Republican Party.

 

I'm pretty sure Matheson is infinitely better than any of the Republican candidates.  Also, he still puts us one vote closer to a Democratic house majority.  I'm all for primarying people like Lieberman in states and districts where we can do better.  The thing is that there are some districts and states where only conservative Democrats can win.  If we ran a candidate who was too liberal to appeal to the rest of this district, we'd lose pure and simple.  I'd be fine with primarying Matheson if this was a Dem-pack (to the degree you can have one in Utah) that only consisted of parts of Salt Lake county.  But that isn't the district that we're dealing with today and so it makes no strategic sense to vote against Matheson b/c he's a conservative Democrat.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The problem is when the DINO/RINOs are in positions of authority in the House/Senate; then they can screw up key bits of legislation (like Obamacare; it's not like it would have a public option, but it would be a lot better if there would have been actual progressives looking over it).

Are the DINOs actually subtracting from the bill - that is, they're making it worse than if they were replaced by Republicans? Or are they are worse relative to the fantasy counterfactual where they're all replaced by progressive Democrats?

Matheson has still been way too conservative and it turns out (after doing a little digging) that he actually voted against Obamacare (and multiple other pieces of legislation that I would consider to be "moderate"), so yeah, I would consider him to be unacceptably bad.

 

Unacceptably bad relative to what though?  It's not like if Matheson loses than he'll be replaced by a semi-progressive or even moderate Democrat.  It will simply become a safe Republican seat and will probably be occupied by a Stephen Sandstrom.  Having a hyper-right-wing Republican for a few years and then an even slightly progressive Democrat a cycle or two later is simply not a realistically possible option in this district.  Say what you will, but Matheson puts the Democrats one seat closer to a house majority and he is pretty much the only Democrat who can win in this district.  I'm all for primarying Democrats like Lieberman, Tom Carper, Daniel Lipinski, David Scott, Tim Holden, Jason Altmire (since I think Critz can hold that district and even if he loses, someone better than Altmire could probably win it in 2014), etc.  However, trying to primary or protest vote against people like Ben Nelson, Jim Matheson, Collin Peterson, Larry Kissell, etc is a foolproof path to defeat.  Doing so actually moves the house to the right.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The problem is when the DINO/RINOs are in positions of authority in the House/Senate; then they can screw up key bits of legislation (like Obamacare; it's not like it would have a public option, but it would be a lot better if there would have been actual progressives looking over it).

Are the DINOs actually subtracting from the bill - that is, they're making it worse than if they were replaced by Republicans? Or are they are worse relative to the fantasy counterfactual where they're all replaced by progressive Democrats?

Matheson has still been way too conservative and it turns out (after doing a little digging) that he actually voted against Obamacare (and multiple other pieces of legislation that I would consider to be "moderate"), so yeah, I would consider him to be unacceptably bad.

 

Unacceptably bad relative to what though?  It's not like if Matheson loses than he'll be replaced by a semi-progressive or even moderate Democrat.  It will simply become a safe Republican seat and will probably be occupied by a Stephen Sandstrom.  Having a hyper-right-wing Republican for a few years and then an even slightly progressive Democrat a cycle or two later is simply not a realistically possible option in this district.  Say what you will, but Matheson puts the Democrats one seat closer to a house majority and he is pretty much the only Democrat who can win in this district.  I'm all for primarying Democrats like Lieberman, Tom Carper, Daniel Lipinski, David Scott, Tim Holden, Jason Altmire (since I think Critz can hold that district and even if he loses, someone better than Altmire could probably win it in 2014), etc.  However, trying to primary or protest vote against people like Ben Nelson, Jim Matheson, Collin Peterson, Larry Kissell, etc is a foolproof path to defeat.  Doing so actually moves the house to the right.

Carper and Scott? They vote their state and district. Holden is losing his primary right now so you may get your wish on that one. Altmire I can understand if you want him primaried if you are a liberal. Lieberman is retiring.

Lipinski is kind of borderline to be primaried.

 

Carper regularly votes to the right of Delaware (i.e. he's not a conservative or anything but we can definitely do better there).  Scott is too conservative on gay rights and is pretty bad on civil liberties issues.  That said, as I think about it, he probably doesn't deserve to get primaried.  Lipinski should be primaried and he would've probably lost were he not saved by redistricting.