Illinois Nazi Wins GOP Nomination...

[CapelDodger]

Except as I have said repeatedly he received a lot of political news on a national level for being a nazi. How many threads on here has their been about these other candidates? This is at least his second.

Did Fox News cover it? Research suggests that people who watch Fox News alone are often less well-informed than people who watch no news at all.

I have a good deal of sympathy with Fizil's position, but then the sheer size of US voting papers is a source of some wonderment for us Brits.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A joke candidate is one thing, a freaking Nazi is another thing.
This makes the GOP look bad,no matter how much you are handwaving that fact away.
And as the GOP becomes the personal tool of one Donald J Trump,you will have a lot to handwave away until you finally understand that the GOP as it once was is dead and gone.

Hey when the official stance is "hey our voters are horribly uninformed and ignorant" and that is the best you can come up with? Yea that does look pretty bad. Though really accurate.

 

[Belz...]

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.

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?

Had a quick check on her Wikipage and it doesn't mention any links to, never mind promoting Nazism?

Your point being? Foolmewunz said we all know where his votes came from "deplorables and morons". My point was, does he think the same thing about the many thousands of people who voted for her when she was unopposed.

*Very slowly* That 20,000 people voting for a Nazi is bad.

*Even slower* That 60,000 people voting for an unopposed candidate that isn't a Nazi is not a logical "Whataboutism" counter to 20,000 people voting for a Nazi.

*Yet slower* That "Oh well it's okay because most people don't know who they are voting for" doesn't make it better.

Wow, the level of discourse in this place really has gone down. None of these posts after FMW's understands the points made by the post they respond to. Glorious.

 

[rwguinn]

Well I tell you what when the Democrats run a Nazi candidate we can test that theory.



20,000 people voted for him. In a democracy "voting" is the only source of support that matters.

20,000 people threw their hat in the ring for a Nazi. You can't make that not true.

WHOOSH! Three times and you still totally missed the point.

 

[ponderingturtle]

WHOOSH! Three times and you still totally missed the point.

Will you count voting for him in the general election as an endorsement of a nazi by republican voters then or will it still be "you can't expect republican voters to be informed, they are clearly just ignorant not intentionally voting for a nazi"?

When does voting for a nazi become something you can hold against someone?

 

[Fizil]

Will you count voting for him in the general election as an endorsement of a nazi by republican voters then or will it still be "you can't expect republican voters to be informed, they are clearly just ignorant not intentionally voting for a nazi"?

When does voting for a nazi become something you can hold against someone?

While I have been arguing that most of his votes were by the uninformed blindly checking the only box given them, I would certainly agree with you that if most Republicans vote for him in the General Election I would "hold it against them". There at least they would have a choice between voting for the person who isn't a Nazi versus the one who is. I would still expect him to get more votes than actual supporters due to the same uninformed partisan phenomenon, but by the time of the General Election I expect more people to be at least somewhat better informed about the candidates, even if they forget their names the day after the election. I would be surprised if he breaks 10,000 votes come the General Election, and if only supporters voted for him I would be surprised if he broke 5,000.

On the other hand, Trump is President of the United States......

 

[theprestige]

I get that we all hate Nazis, but can someone spell out for me, in small words suitable for children, what exactly the Illinois Republican Party did wrong, here?

In your explanation, consider this: They've already conceded the district to the Democrats. Why should they care at all about the vicissitudes of an entirely inconsequential primary?

 

[ahhell]

While I have been arguing that most of his votes were by the uninformed blindly checking the only box given them, I would certainly agree with you that if most Republicans vote for him in the General Election I would "hold it against them". There at least they would have a choice between voting for the person who isn't a Nazi versus the one who is. I would still expect him to get more votes than actual supporters due to the same uninformed partisan phenomenon, but by the time of the General Election I expect more people to be at least somewhat better informed about the candidates, even if they forget their names the day after the election. I would be surprised if he breaks 10,000 votes come the General Election, and if only supporters voted for him I would be surprised if he broke 5,000.

On the other hand, Trump is President of the United States......

I think this is a reasonable understanding of people. The GOP would be wise to endorse the Democrat in this election. The more votes this guy gets the worse it is for them but there are always voters on both sides that don't pay any attention until the day of and reflexively hit the R or the D. The GOP should start suppressing their on voters if they don't want ads in the fall featuring this guy.

 

[Thermal]

I get that we all hate Nazis, but can someone spell out for me, in small words suitable for children, what exactly the Illinois Republican Party did wrong, here?

In your explanation, consider this: They've already conceded the district to the Democrats. Why should they care at all about the vicissitudes of an entirely inconsequential primary?

They allowed their party name to be implicated in an ideology that in theory they do not endorse. This gives observers the impression that they are moving towards, or at least supporting, these views.

Eta: in practical terms, you are right and a sophisticated observer would get what happened. But branding is a real thing, and enough of it will give credence to the belief that Republicans are closet nazis.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I get that we all hate Nazis, but can someone spell out for me, in small words suitable for children, what exactly the Illinois Republican Party did wrong, here?

I don't see too many people blaming the party, republican voters for voting for a nazi seem to be the ones being blamed.

 

[ahhell]

They allowed their party name to be implicated in an ideology that in theory they do not endorse. This gives observers the impression that they are moving towards, or at least supporting, these views.

Eta: in practical terms, you are right and a sophisticated observer would get what happened. But branding is a real thing, and enough of it will give credence to the belief that Republicans are closet nazis.

I don't see too many people blaming the party, republican voters for voting for a nazi seem to be the ones being blamed.

That's seems true to me. And the debate really seems to be about what fraction of those voters, voted for a random guy with an R after his name or NAZI with an R after his name. Who's worse the guy who's an ******* because he's oblivious to others or the guy whose an ******* because he deliberately made the choice to be an *******?

Either way, they're ********, and the GOP needs to minimize the number of them that show up to vote for a NAZI with an R after his name.

 

[theprestige]

They allowed their party name to be implicated in an ideology that in theory they do not endorse.

Implicated to whom? Anybody who takes a moment to look at the situation understands what happened and sees that the implication is baseless.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't see too many people blaming the party, republican voters for voting for a nazi seem to be the ones being blamed.

That's seems true to me. And the debate really seems to be about what fraction of those voters, voted for a random guy with an R after his name or NAZI with an R after his name. Who's worse the guy who's an ******* because he's oblivious to others or the guy whose an ******* because he deliberately made the choice to be an *******?

Either way, they're ********, and the GOP needs to minimize the number of them that show up to vote for a NAZI with an R after his name.

I think we're having different conversations. A couple of us are arguing just the opposite of what you're stating.

The actual significance of robot-like loyalty to the party line is a nothingburger. The issue is that the Illinois GOP were asleep at the switch and have put themselves and their party in the embarrassing situation of having allowed toenail cheese to win the party nomination in a district in Illinois.

I don't read anything into the politics of the people who unnecessarily voted for him. I'm enjoying the humor. A further example of Republican incompetence. There are certain things we know in US politics. One is that people, or at least a certain number of them, will vote for a fire hydrant if it's on the party ticket. In this case, he's the only person running for the party nomination so the loyalists voted for him, not knowing or caring what he believes or doesn't believe.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I think it contributed the factor that the Democratic candidate is so on the political right, so the Republicans had to move even more rightwards. They obviously miscalculated with this Jones dude.

 

[Thermal]

Implicated to whom? Anybody who takes a moment to look at the situation understands what happened and sees that the implication is baseless.

Yes, many reasonable people will see it that way. Some observers, who may be concerned that the GOP is leaning more hard right, will see this as ominous. The President was recently criticized for saying there were good people on both sides in Charlottesville. I'm sure he was attempting to appear impartial or at least optimistic, but it came across as Nazi sympathizing. Isn't there enough needless demonizing without actual nazis allowed to run with an implied Repuclican endorsement?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, many reasonable people will see it that way. Some observers, who may be concerned that the GOP is leaning more hard right, will see this as ominous. The President was recently criticized for saying there were good people on both sides in Charlottesville. I'm sure he was attempting to appear impartial or at least optimistic,

That seems pretty against everything Trump is and does. When has he ever made an effort to appear impartial? If that was the case why couldn't he reject David Dukes endorsement instead of hemming and hawing about it?

At best you can say he knew which side his supporters were on and wouldn't condemn his supporters like that.

 

[Belz...]

I think it contributed the factor that the Democratic candidate is so on the political right, so the Republicans had to move even more rightwards. They obviously miscalculated with this Jones dude.

Huh... so do you think that moving towards the right to try to draw Republican votes is a bad idea from Democrats because it'll just drive the right further to the right?

 

[theprestige]

I think it contributed the factor that the Democratic candidate is so on the political right, so the Republicans had to move even more rightwards. They obviously miscalculated with this Jones dude.

This wasn't a rightward move by the Republicans, though. This was simply not bothering to contest a primary election in a district where they weren't going to contest the general election.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, many reasonable people will see it that way. Some observers, who may be concerned that the GOP is leaning more hard right, will see this as ominous.

Why? Obviously nobody here sees it as ominous, since we understand the circumstances.

The President was recently criticized for saying there were good people on both sides in Charlottesville. I'm sure he was attempting to appear impartial or at least optimistic, but it came across as Nazi sympathizing. Isn't there enough needless demonizing without actual nazis allowed to run with an implied Repuclican endorsement?

It's not an implied endorsement, though. Anyone who understands the primary process can see that.

 

[Thermal]

That seems pretty against everything Trump is and does. When has he ever made an effort to appear impartial? If that was the case why couldn't he reject David Dukes endorsement instead of hemming and hawing about it?

At best you can say he knew which side his supporters were on and wouldn't condemn his supporters like that.

Look, the President convinced millions of voters that he was fit to best serve as President.

Donald...J...tapdancing...Trump.

He is really in the Oval Office. This is not a joke. I am done with hyper polarizing politics.