The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[wesmoorenerd]

The coordinated campaign is placing field organizers in Rome and Dalton. Neither have had staffers deployed to my knowledge since 2008, and even then, they were volunteers as best as I can recall.

The fact that she's even making any sort of effort toward Northern Georgia at all proves to me that she's a dynamic candidate.  Most Dems would write that area off.

TBH though this kind of activity is a classic double standard. Right now we are exalting her for reaching out to areas that are typically off the map, but if she loses we will be blaming her for sending resources to areas she shouldn't have. It is not that it doesn't deserve attention, it is just that we the observers will overplay its significance - in either direction.

I don't think anybody who knows the entirety of Georgia and its demographics would make such a diagnosis after the fact (though, to be fair, there are plenty in the party who think that way). It is North Georgia and North Georgia alone that has been denying Democrats victory over the past 10 years, and abandoning the region has only ceded ground to the GOP and atrophied Democratic infrastructure. We've lost a vote statewide for every one we've gained since 2008 and much of it comes from North Georgia. I'd argue that for any persuasion-based outreach, North Georgia is the most opportune area for GA Democrats to learn how to master the strategy in rural areas again, but given its low turnout and huge drop-offs in midterms (particularly in the NW), turnout strategies can produce results as well.

Democrats need to close the margin by like 275k votes to win a majority and you're only realistically going to get half of that out of Metro ATL; maybe another 20% of that out of the remaining urban areas if you're lucky. That leaves another 100k votes or so that have to come from rural Georgia, and South Georgia doesn't have anywhere near enough population to pull those kinds of figures.

Georgia is not Illinois. You cannot win a majority statewide by assuming the major metro can carry the state across the line kicking and screaming (yet). A Democratic candidate who doesn't seriously contest every region of the state is not a serious candidate, and isn't going to win because the votes just aren't there otherwise. We've been in a situation for awhile now where if we could just pull the numbers among whites or rural voters that we had 4-6 years prior, we'd be on the verge of winning pluralities at minimum, but abandoning the areas where those losses are occurring only ensures one set of demographics is cancelled out by the other.

[wesmoorenerd]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

[wesmoorenerd]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

Our government has never been and should never be based on what is Biblically right and Biblically wrong.

[wesmoorenerd]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

Our government has never been and should never be based on what is Biblically right and Biblically wrong.

Both part of this statement are assertions.  Not facts.

When people assert this, I would ask them to ask just exactly what sort of right and wrong standards governmental policy and law should reflect, and just exactly why those particular standards should hold sway over others.

Well, it's a fact that our government isn't and was never intended to be based on Biblical ethical standards. That much is undeniable.

It's true that there are no consistent and concrete ethical standards our government should obey. However, there are indeed ethical standards that most people would consider reasonable. For example, virtually every American in 2018 will agree that the government should permit interracial marriage. There's no concrete, scientific ethical standard for this, but almost everyone will agree it's the ethical thing to do (and rightfully so). Protecting LGBT rights is quickly becoming one of those standards.

[wesmoorenerd]

The Democratic party must become staunchly pro-coal, firmly and openly denouncing anti-coal individuals as deplorable in the party platform and in TV Ads. Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden must also make a joint address on National Television in which they profusely apologize for being anti-coal, beg for forgiveness, and then become unmistakably pro-coal.

Wulfric, did you seriously just quote yourself in the high quality posts thread?

[wesmoorenerd]

The burgeoning Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs will destroy Trump in NC if he makes it to 2020.

You have to keep in mind that the Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs are Southern. These suburbs will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here they are very, very INELASTIC.

Not sure how this qualifies for the Wellspring of ignorance thread. While it might be debatable, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the politics of suburban Charlotte, isn't it something of a given that southern suburbs are markedly, dramatically more conservative and Republican than Northern suburbs? There was some change in that in the last two elections, but comparing most southern suburbs with say Suburban Philadelphia, Oregon suburban Chicago, are two dramatically different things.

Again, more than willing to be educated about the on ground realities of Mecklenburg County politics if anyone can offer a knowledgeable first-hand perspective.

It's truly incredible how completely oblivious to sarcasm Atlas users can be sometimes.

[wesmoorenerd]

The main reason is that too many of the folks there whose support he needed are now Democrats or at least strongly anti-Trump independents.  Kent County is the part of the district where this trend (which shows no signs of slowing down) is strongest.  However, there are some much smaller factors that probably also contributed (I’d say at the margins, but in a race as close as this primary, who knows what the deciding factor was?):

- Meijer kinda tried to have it both ways towards in late 2021/early 2022 whenhe’d make occasional statements vaguely implying that Biden was a greater threat to democracy than Trump.  However, this complicated his messaging.  This was when I knew his own internals were showing him in a really bad spot and IIRC he even told a reporter in early-to-mid 2022 that he fully expected to lose his primary.  

Anyway, I think Meijer would’ve been better off sticking to the original strategy of just owning his impeachment vote and running as a bipartisan champion of democracy.  He shifted back to that towards the end, but it likely muddled the messaging a bit in the meantime.  

- I also think redistricting really, really hurt Meijer in the primary in a way that has largely gone undiscussed.  Meijer originally had like 3-4 different C-list Trumpist primary opponents who all seemed pretty determined to stick it out to the primary.  Even if one had dropped out, Meijer did well enough that he likely would’ve won under such a scenario.  

However, all of the challengers except Gibbs were drawn out of the district under the new map.  One of them (Norton) even got like ~35% challenging a pretty Trumpy Republican incumbent, so Gibbs and him would’ve likely split the vote enough on their own for Meijer to win.  Unfortunately for Meijer, Gibbs ended up as his only opponent which gave the Trumpers plenty of time to consolidate.  

- Finally, the DCCC did some last minute ratf***ing to boost Gibbs b/c he’d be a far easier GE opponent.  I doubt this mattered too much, but the race was close enough that it’s worth mentioning.  My views on this are a little weird.  

I strongly support the DCCC’s meddling in Republican congressional primaries in districts with a potentially competitive GE.  This race was no exception and the beltway pundits need to stop whining about this.  Their job is to elect as many Democrats as possible and Meijer losing shifts this seat from Lean R -> Lean D.  However, if I lived in the district, then I would crossover to the Republican primary this cycle and vote for Meijer.  He risked his career to stand up for American democracy and that should count for something.  If you’re a Democratic operative than the right thing to do is to help boost Gibbs in the primary, but for me as a private individual, I want Republicans to see that really standing up to Trump (as opposed to just being disliked by him for some random arbitrary reason) isn’t automatic political suicide in a Republican primary.

I doubt this seat will decide control of the House, so it becomes a win-win.  Either we likely flip a Republican district in 2022 and hold onto it for most/all of the decade (worst case, it doesn’t flip until 2024) or a truly anti-Trump Republican beats Trump’s pick in a genuinely competitive primary.
______________________________________________________________________________
On a different note, I really hope Newhouse and JHB win Re-election.  These are both safe Republican districts, so they are likely the best we will get.  Newhouse’s challenger in particular, Loren Culp, seems  to be an especially despicable individual.  Plus, in a way, there might be more utility in showing that one can survive being anti-Trump in a Safe Republican district than showing that one can survive it in a suburban swing district.  The latter is likely much easier to handwave away.  But I digress…