• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Illinois Nazi Wins GOP Nomination...

BobTheCoward said:
Depends on how much you want to judge their level of effort.
Click to expand...
It's not the first time Jones tried to run in this district. Two years ago, the local GOP was "saved" by the fact that Jones' signatures partly were out of district and thus void (he also tried to run for Senate and used signatures collected for that for his House bid). So the local GOP was forewarned.

The GOP doesn't stand a chance to win that district anyway, so how hard would it have been to get someone to nominally run for a position they wouldn't get anyway? Cue scene from the AGM:
"Next item on the agenda. Nominate a non-Nazi House candidate. As you all know, Nazi Arthur Jones has been trying to run in the GOP primaries for the last five House elections, and he'll undoubtedly try to run again. So we need a warm body on the ballot who will run against him to save us from the disgrace of having a Nazi on the ballot come November. In the board, we've been drawing straws and our beloved treasurer, mr. X. Torter, has drawn the short straw. We need 603 signatures to get him on the ballot, so we're now passing the paperwork around for his support signatures. Please all sign."

Really, how hard is it?
 
I think you are all being rather judgemental and bullying towards this gentleman... He could be one of Trump's good guys!
 
Brainster said:
There were 53 uncontested congressional races in 2016; that's almost 1 in 8.
Click to expand...

And the RNC is saying, "would that this were one of those". I don't know if he had to get any votes at all because he ran uncontested. He might've gotten 200 votes. You could get a local parish priest to run and get 1000, even in a heavily blue district. And that's what the state GOP should have done. How much press is this going to get them - not in the least positive? The Good People On Both Sides Party Proves Their Beliefs in Illinois!

If the NY State GOP looks the other way while David Duke runs for the NY 12th (Green Point, Manhattan and nearby Queens), they deserve the mockery. That's what we're getting here, and they've earned it. It's bad enough when the tea party gets "The Rape Guy(s)" nominated by splitting the votes of the mainstream Republicans, but not bothering to put up someone, anyone, who better represents the party is just plain stupid.
 
I'll say what I said last time this came up - it seems very, very strange to me that a political party doesn't have the right to say "no, this person doesn't represent our values and, as such, cannot represent us".
 
Foolmewunz said:
And the RNC is saying, "would that this were one of those". I don't know if he had to get any votes at all because he ran uncontested. He might've gotten 200 votes. You could get a local parish priest to run and get 1000, even in a heavily blue district. And that's what the state GOP should have done. How much press is this going to get them - not in the least positive? The Good People On Both Sides Party Proves Their Beliefs in Illinois!

If the NY State GOP looks the other way while David Duke runs for the NY 12th (Green Point, Manhattan and nearby Queens), they deserve the mockery. That's what we're getting here, and they've earned it. It's bad enough when the tea party gets "The Rape Guy(s)" nominated by splitting the votes of the mainstream Republicans, but not bothering to put up someone, anyone, who better represents the party is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

The obvious conclusion is that he does represent their values.
 
ddt said:
It's not the first time Jones tried to run in this district. Two years ago, the local GOP was "saved" by the fact that Jones' signatures partly were out of district and thus void (he also tried to run for Senate and used signatures collected for that for his House bid). So the local GOP was forewarned.

The GOP doesn't stand a chance to win that district anyway, so how hard would it have been to get someone to nominally run for a position they wouldn't get anyway? Cue scene from the AGM:
"Next item on the agenda. Nominate a non-Nazi House candidate. As you all know, Nazi Arthur Jones has been trying to run in the GOP primaries for the last five House elections, and he'll undoubtedly try to run again. So we need a warm body on the ballot who will run against him to save us from the disgrace of having a Nazi on the ballot come November. In the board, we've been drawing straws and our beloved treasurer, mr. X. Torter, has drawn the short straw. We need 603 signatures to get him on the ballot, so we're now passing the paperwork around for his support signatures. Please all sign."

Really, how hard is it?
Click to expand...

Well,your scenario breaks down if they don't actually have carrots or sticks to make Mr X do it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Well,your scenario breaks down if they don't actually have carrots or sticks to make Mr X do it.
Click to expand...

If you decide that a certain loss against the opposing party is a greater blemish than having your own party represented by an actual sieg-heiling Nazi, you deserve what you get.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
If you decide that a certain loss against the opposing party is a greater blemish than having your own party represented by an actual sieg-heiling Nazi, you deserve what you get.
Click to expand...

Unless they cross the minimum level of effort to be designated an effort to prevent that from happening.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Unless they cross the minimum level of effort to be designated an effort to prevent that from happening.
Click to expand...

The minimum level of effort here would be "preventing a Nazi from getting your nomination".
Anything less is far too careless for a statewide political organisation.
Heck, putting in a little effort, but not enough to prevent this would be even worse. It'd mean they didn't really mind.

Alternatively, you could tell us what you think would constitute 'enough effort' to justify losing to a Nazi?
And if you say you don't know or you have no opinion, I'll know enough...
ETA: and... Question answered. Thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life said:
The minimum level of effort here would be "preventing a Nazi from getting your nomination".
Anything less is far too careless for a statewide political organisation.
Heck, putting in a little effort, but not enough to prevent this would be even worse. It'd mean they didn't really mind.

Alternatively, you could tell us what you think would constitute 'enough effort' to justify losing to a Nazi?
And if you say you don't know or you have no opinion, I'll know enough...
Click to expand...

I honestly don't have a clue how much effort is the minimum amount. It doesn't sound like you actually have a minimum effort test. If you test requires success, then it actually isn't an effort based test.

Why is there an expectation that I should somehow have the ability to assess the minimal level of effort of a state political party?

ETA; I don't know what would constitute enough effort and I have no opinion on it specifically...just on the concept of effort levels.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Guaranteed, the Dems are very happy about all the coverage this loon will get when the campaign starts in September...
Click to expand...

Wow! A neo-nazy against a pro-life anti-Obamacare anti-LGBT rights blue-dog-coalition conservative Democratic who looks like a pimp. Who inhabits that district? Musollini's grandchildren?

Coherence? Naahhh. Anything to get power. At any cost, the donkey will screw you and the elephant will crush you if you don't play along.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
And the RNC is saying, "would that this were one of those". I don't know if he had to get any votes at all because he ran uncontested. He might've gotten 200 votes.
Click to expand...

I can not find a vote total from a terribly reputable source but the number I find is 20k no 200.

https://thinkprogress.org/20000-illinois-republicans-voted-for-nazi-7bbeeb7631fd/


https://medium.com/@danielbier/wait-did-20-000-republicans-really-vote-for-a-nazi-a280efeca65

Here are 13k republicans who voted for him so there is that.

https://electionnight.cookcountyclerk.com/StaticSummaryeid032018jurUSREPptyREP.html
 
It was stupid of the Ill. GOP not to get someone to run against him, but really I don't see a huge issue here. It isn't as though 20,000 voted for him because they knew who he was, what he stood for, and supported him. Rather, he was one name, in one contest on a ballot covering a variety of offices. This was the Republican primary, and voters were voting for candidates from Governor to State Treasurer. It just so happens that his was the only box for Congressional Representative. The most likely reason he actually got 20,000 votes was simply people checking a box in each race, rather than leaving stuff blank if they didn't want to make a choice at all. So he ends up with a bunch of what amount to default votes.
 
Fizil said:
It was stupid of the Ill. GOP not to get someone to run against him, but really I don't see a huge issue here. It isn't as though 20,000 voted for him because they knew who he was, what he stood for, and supported him. Rather, he was one name, in one contest on a ballot covering a variety of offices. This was the Republican primary, and voters were voting for candidates from Governor to State Treasurer. It just so happens that his was the only box for Congressional Representative. The most likely reason he actually got 20,000 votes was simply people checking a box in each race, rather than leaving stuff blank if they didn't want to make a choice at all. So he ends up with a bunch of what amount to default votes.
Click to expand...

There's far too much intellectualizing going on. We can all pretty much figure out where the votes come from. Deplorables and morons. If they'd looked at the ballot and were voting as Republicans, they didn't need to vote because he's unopposed, after all. "Look! There's a Republican. Must press button." That's pretty Pavlovian.

The only significance is that it's a public relations black eye for people to bring up from time to time. There's no real "read" to make of it; just another chapter in the latest edition of The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. It's not even as good as The Rape Guys episodes, because this clown has zero chance of winning and causing them further embarrassment in the House. It's just some light entertainment while we await tomorrow morning's White House fiasco.
 
Fizil said:
It was stupid of the Ill. GOP not to get someone to run against him, but really I don't see a huge issue here. It isn't as though 20,000 voted for him because they knew who he was, what he stood for, and supported him. Rather, he was one name, in one contest on a ballot covering a variety of offices. This was the Republican primary, and voters were voting for candidates from Governor to State Treasurer. It just so happens that his was the only box for Congressional Representative. The most likely reason he actually got 20,000 votes was simply people checking a box in each race, rather than leaving stuff blank if they didn't want to make a choice at all. So he ends up with a bunch of what amount to default votes.
Click to expand...

Yea it isn't like he received any press about being a nazi. Who could possibly have known he was a nazi when they were voting for him?
 
Foolmewunz said:
There's far too much intellectualizing going on. We can all pretty much figure out where the votes come from. Deplorables and morons. If they'd looked at the ballot and were voting as Republicans, they didn't need to vote because he's unopposed, after all. "Look! There's a Republican. Must press button." That's pretty Pavlovian.
Click to expand...

Janice Schakowsky (D) ran unopposed in the Democratic primary for the 9th Congressional District. She got over 60,000 votes. Were the people who voted for her also morons?

The fact of the matter is this ballot (and most others) instruct you to "Pick 1 candidate". Sure you and I might know that doesn't mean you have to pick a candidate, but consider this from the point of view of even a slightly less knowledgeable voter. You want your ballot to count, and you don't know for sure if you are allowed to leave stuff blank. You might ask yourself: Will leaving something blank invalidate my entire ballot? So you could either blindly follow instructions picking one candidate per office, or not be sure if you can leave anything blank, and pick one candidate per office out of concern for invalidating your entire ballot, or you know you can leave stuff blank, and do so when you know nothing about the candidate (or in this case, know negative things about him).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom