Politics is a Dirty Business; Don't Rip on People Who Play it Well for their Constituents. Respect Them, and Elect People Who Can Play the Game as Well as They Do.
Good stuff here: "That’s one of the reasons the youthful idealism that elected Zoran Mamdani and got David Hogg to be Vice Chair of the DNC is so shortsighted. Yeah, they’re photogenic up and comers with big instragram followings. You know what they’re not? Good players at politics"
You're very good at this. You make your point and present your case persuasively. And the inclusion of the Hamilton clip was ideal for the argument. No doubt Murkowski and many other Senators in the past, along with House reps in the past, continued to get reelected due to bringing jobs or benefits to their districts or states. But.... are those effective politicians not in the minority in these current radical partisan times? Do the Markwayne Mullins or Marjie T Greenes , the uncompromising extremists who seem to make up the majority of recent Republican politicians post-Tea Party/MAGA, actually bring anything to their voters' benefit? Do their voters even care? I think they keep getting reelected due to their voters biased ignorance and no other reason. I know it's impossible to analyze the outcomes of 535 individual cases, but I doubt that most in the current and recent Congresses delivered for their constituents. It just seems as if media saturation and propaganda from the usual sources is too strong to allow the election of an effective actual politician willing to buck his R party line these days.
The media like to draw contrasts, which means pitting one alternative against another. The wider the gap, the better the contrast, the more it plays. But the people who ultimately decide if a bill passes or not, especially in tight and razor thin majorities, all come from the middle (and usually a holdout from the majority party, because the majority would typically NOT want to deal with anyone from the opposition if they didn't have to). In those cases, they need to extract as much from the process, like a poker player trying to draw out as many chips from other players as possible before cashing in.
If you're already on the side of a yes vote without getting anything for your district, then typically what you did was sell yourself out for way less. Those people who keep getting re-elected that way, it says more about their districts than it says about them.
Murkowski supporting the bill wasn’t corrupt because the benefits were for her constituents not herself or her family and friends.
The context of this vote isn’t normal politics. Trump isn’t arm twisting like LBJ did. In addition to threats of primary challenges have been physical threats from MAGA world made particularly real by the assassination this month.
Murkowski supporting the bill is a function of Murkowski being self-admittedly afraid. She’s been looking for excuses to avoid Trump’s wrath this entire term.
And aside from the physical threats, the Republican Party has become a cult of personality and so as Adam Kinzinger has talked about when you cross Trump you are socially exiled as well as political defenestrated.
She's not up for re-election until 2028 and has toyed with becoming an independent. She won an election in 2010 against a Tea Party nut as an indepedent write-in candidate. The margins for a majority are so thin, the Republican Party needs her a lot more than she needs it.
She's not afraid of MAGA or Trump and will be there if she wants to be long after Trump's gone.
She shouldn’t be afraid of re-election and I didn’t think that what she was referring to when she told her constituents she was afraid. She’s definitely afraid of MAGA.
She's not afraid of MAGA. She's afraid of crazed, zealous lunatics like Vance Boelter going on a shooting spree, of which MAGA has more than it's fair share, with plenty of them in Alaska.
But that's a personal safety issue, not a political one.
Which (in her case) stems from Trump & MAGA. Trump claimed the election was stolen, tens of millions in MAGA got angry, tens of thousands threaten, thousands showed up on Jan 6, a couple thousand marched to the Capitol, hundreds attacked police officers. When Trump singles a lawmaker or politician out, sometimes it leads to a “zealous lunatic” committing violence.
Except for the Civil War era, politicians used to fear losing elections and the power and status that went with the office.
Now many privately and Murkowski publicly have expressed fear of violence to themselves and their families if they cross Trump. (It seems worse for judges). Others have spoken publicly about the vast amount of threats they have received from MAGA world.
My point is Murkowski’s deal wasn’t politically motivated, it was based on personal fear with a sheen of political justification.
Good stuff here: "That’s one of the reasons the youthful idealism that elected Zoran Mamdani and got David Hogg to be Vice Chair of the DNC is so shortsighted. Yeah, they’re photogenic up and comers with big instragram followings. You know what they’re not? Good players at politics"
You're very good at this. You make your point and present your case persuasively. And the inclusion of the Hamilton clip was ideal for the argument. No doubt Murkowski and many other Senators in the past, along with House reps in the past, continued to get reelected due to bringing jobs or benefits to their districts or states. But.... are those effective politicians not in the minority in these current radical partisan times? Do the Markwayne Mullins or Marjie T Greenes , the uncompromising extremists who seem to make up the majority of recent Republican politicians post-Tea Party/MAGA, actually bring anything to their voters' benefit? Do their voters even care? I think they keep getting reelected due to their voters biased ignorance and no other reason. I know it's impossible to analyze the outcomes of 535 individual cases, but I doubt that most in the current and recent Congresses delivered for their constituents. It just seems as if media saturation and propaganda from the usual sources is too strong to allow the election of an effective actual politician willing to buck his R party line these days.
The media like to draw contrasts, which means pitting one alternative against another. The wider the gap, the better the contrast, the more it plays. But the people who ultimately decide if a bill passes or not, especially in tight and razor thin majorities, all come from the middle (and usually a holdout from the majority party, because the majority would typically NOT want to deal with anyone from the opposition if they didn't have to). In those cases, they need to extract as much from the process, like a poker player trying to draw out as many chips from other players as possible before cashing in.
If you're already on the side of a yes vote without getting anything for your district, then typically what you did was sell yourself out for way less. Those people who keep getting re-elected that way, it says more about their districts than it says about them.
Murkowski supporting the bill wasn’t corrupt because the benefits were for her constituents not herself or her family and friends.
The context of this vote isn’t normal politics. Trump isn’t arm twisting like LBJ did. In addition to threats of primary challenges have been physical threats from MAGA world made particularly real by the assassination this month.
Murkowski supporting the bill is a function of Murkowski being self-admittedly afraid. She’s been looking for excuses to avoid Trump’s wrath this entire term.
And aside from the physical threats, the Republican Party has become a cult of personality and so as Adam Kinzinger has talked about when you cross Trump you are socially exiled as well as political defenestrated.
She's not up for re-election until 2028 and has toyed with becoming an independent. She won an election in 2010 against a Tea Party nut as an indepedent write-in candidate. The margins for a majority are so thin, the Republican Party needs her a lot more than she needs it.
She's not afraid of MAGA or Trump and will be there if she wants to be long after Trump's gone.
She shouldn’t be afraid of re-election and I didn’t think that what she was referring to when she told her constituents she was afraid. She’s definitely afraid of MAGA.
She's not afraid of MAGA. She's afraid of crazed, zealous lunatics like Vance Boelter going on a shooting spree, of which MAGA has more than it's fair share, with plenty of them in Alaska.
But that's a personal safety issue, not a political one.
Yes, it is a personal safety issue.
Which (in her case) stems from Trump & MAGA. Trump claimed the election was stolen, tens of millions in MAGA got angry, tens of thousands threaten, thousands showed up on Jan 6, a couple thousand marched to the Capitol, hundreds attacked police officers. When Trump singles a lawmaker or politician out, sometimes it leads to a “zealous lunatic” committing violence.
Except for the Civil War era, politicians used to fear losing elections and the power and status that went with the office.
Now many privately and Murkowski publicly have expressed fear of violence to themselves and their families if they cross Trump. (It seems worse for judges). Others have spoken publicly about the vast amount of threats they have received from MAGA world.
My point is Murkowski’s deal wasn’t politically motivated, it was based on personal fear with a sheen of political justification.