As Key Georgia Senate Election Looms, Republicans Are Making It Difficult To Root for Divided Government

The ideal (if unlikely) outcome might be a split decision.


This week's runoff elections in Georgia will determine whether Republicans can escape from the Trump era with a Senate majority intact or if President-elect Joe Biden will have a much friendlier Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress.

The two races, which conclude with in-person voting on Tuesday, will set the table for the first two years of the Biden administration. If Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff, a former journalist and political activist, and Raphael Warnock, a pastor, prevail in their races, the Senate will be evenly divided, 50–50, with incoming Vice President Kamala Harris set to be the tie-breaking vote. Meanwhile, Sen. David Perdue (R–Ga.) and Kelly Loeffler, a businesswoman, are hoping to maintain the GOP majority.

Under normal circumstances, Americans who care about limiting the size and power of the federal government would be rooting for at least one Republican victory on Tuesday. That's not because Republicans are actually committed to limiting the size and power of the federal government, of course. It's because a divided government means more opportunities for gridlock. The results of November's general election weren't so bad for anyone who likes to see both major parties lose, and Republican victories on Tuesday would keep that theme going.

But Republicans seem determined to convince voters that they ought to be exiled from political power.

Consider just the past few days. A group of Republicans led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) announced over the weekend that they plan to object on Wednesday when the Senate goes through the usually-routine process of certifying the Electoral College vote. They are making this doomed, last-gasp bid to block Biden's victory not because they have serious evidence of voter fraud but because they are prioritizing the outgoing president's unhinged allegations of a stolen election over the actual functioning of the democratic process.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post has published a recording of a phone call in which Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to reverse the election's outcome. The call is appalling conduct for a sitting president, but it also isn't surprising. For months, Trump has been trying to sow doubts about the election's outcome and has behaved as if all Republican officials should help him achieve victory no matter what the results actually say.

Trump's battle against reality has spilled over into the Georgia run-off elections in strange ways. As The Bulwark's Amanda Carpenter explained last week, Perdue and Loeffler have been forced into the awkward position of embracing Trump—the first Republican to lose a presidential election in Georgia since 1992—for fear of alienating his supporters, whose votes they will need on Tuesday. "It's the perfect distillation of the dead-end conundrum of Trumpism: Republicans know that they can't win without the kooks," Carpenter wrote. "Republicans also know that they definitely might lose with them."

In fact, Republicans might have already secured a Senate majority if not for Trump's ill-advised campaign against voting by mail. Raffensperger, a Republican, has said as much. In November, he told Atlanta's WSB-TV that roughly 24,000 Republicans who voted via absentee ballot in the state's primary election did not vote at all in the general election. While they might have had other reasons for doing that, Raffensperger said Trump's campaign to delegitimize mail-in voting likely "suppressed his own voting base."

If those voters had participated in November. Perdue may very well have won his race without needing a run-off. Under Georgia election law, candidates must get more than 50 percent of the vote to win. Perdue got 49.73 percent.

Any political party that engages in deliberate attempts to undermine the democratic system deserves to lose. And a political party that rallies around a leader who seems to be undermining its own success is too stupid to be trusted with power.

So maybe the ideal outcome—even if an unlikely one—is a split decision.

If Republicans emerge from this run-off election with a 51–49 majority, that would still allow Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) to act as a needed roadblock. With a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the House, Republicans will probably rediscover their interest in fiscal conservatism. But putting that into practice—perhaps with a resurrection of the Obama-era spending caps that the Trump-era Republicans shattered—will require at least a slim GOP majority in the Senate.

A split decision Tuesday, pairing a single Republican victory with a single Republican loss, might do more to break the party's Trump fever than a wipeout loss would. A slim Republican Senate majority would maximize the leverage of moderate Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Mitt Romney (R–Utah)—who happen to be some of the senators least corrupted by Trumpism.

Being in the minority, on the other hand, would elevate a different set of Republican senators. Rather than feeling like they've narrowly survived a bout with Trumpism, the party might sink further into that morass under the weight of Trump's grievances and (in his hardcore supporters' eyes) political martyrdom.

It's tempting to wish for Republicans to get swept on Tuesday. It's what they probably deserve after the past two months, to say nothing of the past four years. But for reasons centered in politics and policy, I'll spend Tuesday rooting—as usual—for both parties to lose.

NEXT: Biden's Judicial Picks Should Include Lawyers Who Battled the Government in Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “But Republicans seem determined to convince voters that they ought to be exiled from political power.”

    I would think voting citizens of Georgia would want election integrity. Given how corrupt Democrats have shown themselves to be, I’m not following your strange theory that openly committing fraud helps get you more “legitimate” votes.

    1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Makings money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..work92/7 online

    2. If you care about election integrity why do you support Trump’s attempt to undermine it?

      1. Lol. Is this like a reverse jinx? He ismt undermining it dipshit. He has called for the audits.

        1. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $244567 and this was just of a single week… I have QAf also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it… =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= USA ONLINE JOBS

      2. I think you’re confused. Trump is trying to PREVENT you people from undermining it.

      3. How is he trying to undermine it? He’s just asking for investigations into it. What’s disgusting is people like you who insist on suppressing all legal challenges to it merely because you tribe won.

        1. No one is suppressing legal challenges or investigations. No one stopped Trump or his surrogates from filing over five dozen lawsuits that went absolutely nowhere.

          You can’t convince guys like Andrew McCarthy, author of Ball of Collusion, a man that called for the impeachment of President Obama, saying, “the failure to pursue impeachment is likely to be suicide for the country.” I wonder if you’d assume that he is just another RINO or part of the Deep State for thinking that all of this is ridiculous. What makes you think you can convince anyone other than true Trumpites that there was massive fraud?


    3. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three months and a month cxs ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…… Visit Here

  2. This is exactly what rational and sane libertarians are thinking. The GOP may have used to be ideologically closer to us than the Dems, but that moment has passed.

    I care not what their other policies are (there are none, just “support Trump”) when one of their policies is that elections are not sacrosanct. That elections are not the biggest part of what makes us Americans. That we cannot share power with people we disagree with. That we need to start a civil war over a milquetoast corporatist centrist.

    That scuttles the whole boat.

    You don’t like dems? Neither do i. You want low taxes? Me too. You want to make elections optional? Fuck off.

    1. You seem confused. Democrats are the ones that legalized voter fraud. Even the liberal PA supreme court declared election laws to be optional.

      1. No, they fucking have not. The only established examples of voter fraud this cycle (to my knowledge) have been Scrump supporters. Charges have been filed, cases docketed. Maybe in Q land that’s evidence of conspiracy, selective prosecution, etc, but in the real world it just means y’all are like 100% more criminal.

        1. Scrump? I don’t know Trump from Scrump!

          I have heard that Trumpanzees go bananas for bananas! Trumpanzees don’t give a hoot for property rights; they will steal and eat the votes, imaginary votes, made-up votes, and bananas of all and sundry, no matter WHERE they come from, or who owns them! “Property rights” and “honesty” are concepts FAR too complex for Trumpanzees to even VAGUELY comprehend!

          1. There’s a TV show about you eating shit.


          1. Then the people DAs aren’t even bothering to prosecute such as known double voters.


        2. LOL, “charges filed, cases docketed.” I can see you’re REAL consistent in your standards of guilt and innocence. If that’s what you’re going by, Trump and the GOP have filed upwards of 100’s of “cases docketed.”

          But I noticed you only make that point when it supposedly favors Democrats. You’re a biased partisan hack.

      2. The wisconsin Supreme Court even said that people self declaring themselves to be unable to leave their house was illegal, but the suit had to be individualized. There was known fraud, may people have been indicted already. But stolen Valor thinks this is the first election no fraud occurred.

    2. Brief reminder that cytotoxic (in this iteration as De Oppresso Liber) still believes that Russia colluded with the Trump administration to undermine Hillary Clinton’s election in 2016 and continues to insist that the Mueller report confirms this batshit insane conspiracy theory.

      1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

        1. Youre defending a hardened conspiracy but WK.

    3. This is exactly what rational and sane libertarians are thinking.

      Are these the dancing around in their underwear, boot-hat wearing, blowhole-fucking libertarians or no?

    4. “Everyone who disagrees with me must be insane,” is not exactly a good position to mark out.

    5. The constitution is what makes us American, not elections. Almost every country has elections, but no other country was founded on the theory that people have unalienable rights. That most polititions choose to ignore individual rights is a sepearte matter.

      1. ^THIS; Elections shouldn’t matter so much but they do today BECAUSE “most elected polutioners (lol) choose to ignore individual rights” and the Constitution.

        1. Welcome to the progressive era, which began a century ago

    6. You still believe Russia changed 2016 stolen Valor. You aren’t a libertarian. Youre democrat still living in a deep blue state who thinks he is normal because Portland has even crazier leftists.

    7. That’s right. It’s reasonably assured that Dictator Trump would keep cutting taxes, but he’d be a dictator. The problem here is how libertarianism overlaps with outright kleptocracy when only a narrow window of policies is considered.

      You’d think that the rule of law and free elections would precede any temporary tax environment in terms of relevance to long-term liberty.

      1. You regularly advocate for all kinds of oppression. You don’t believe in individual rights.

        1. I believe in far more individual rights than you do.

          Your problem is you substitute slogans for thoughts.

          1. For someone who wants higher taxes, more government, and increased regulation, you have a strange way of being in favor of more individual rights.

            1. That’s because I am not the sad little plaything of kook billionaires, and so I define freedom meaningfully rather than simplistically as “freedom from taxes.”

              You think I want to regulate factories for shits and giggles? Or maybe I want to protect children from poisoned water.

              Does clean drinking water have anything to do with freedom in your world?

              1. I love that you are such a binary thinker. It makes it hard to discuss topics with you, though, because you frame everything in extreme terms.

                I don’t like bloated, big government, therefore that must mean I want children to die from poisoned water. I don’t like more and more taxes creating a bigger and bigger beast that does nothing but spend more, stagnate the economy, and drive up debt. Maybe I like a little fiscal responsibility. But you see that as “freedom from taxes” rather than demanding that taxes be spent appropriately first before raising them.

                It you weren’t so intellectually dishonest with every position you take, you would probably have a fair amount of good points. But alas, you are a tribalist, and tribalists have to play the moral extreme games.

                1. I just asked you if you were mistaking my desire not to see poisoned children for some kind of support of tyranny.

                  I’m one of the few people in this room not supporting actual tyranny. So we could all stand to be more careful with our terms.

                  1. I just asked you if you were mistaking my desire not to see poisoned children for some kind of support of tyranny.

                    Are you talking about government provided water like in Flint MI?

    8. It’s not a matter of who is “ideologically closer”. It’s what configuration of government (who controls what) would result in the most desirable outcomes.

    9. I’ve seen little evidence of your rationality. And you’re definitely not libertarian. Sanity is a mixed bag for anyone that posts here.

  3. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
    on this page…. Visit Here

  4. “Any political party that engages in deliberate attempts to undermine the democratic system deserves to lose.”

    You think that’s describing the Republicans, but most R’s and even 30% of D’s think that is a more accurate description of the Democrat party.

    1. Since I immediately suspect you Trump Trash are lying and full of shit I went and did a little investigation on which party is more corrupt.

      GOP Admins Had 38 Times More Criminal Convictions Than Democrats, 1961-2016
      We compared 56 years of corruption in Republican and Democratic presidencies: both sides are not equally corrupt.

      We compared 28 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations, 1961-2016, five Presidents from each party. During that period Republicans scored eighteen times more individuals and entities indicted, thirty-eight times more convictions, and thirty-nine times more individuals who had prison time.

      Given the at least 17 active investigations plaguing President Trump, he is on a path to exceed previous administrations, though the effects of White House obstruction, potential pardons, and the as-yet unknown impact of the GOP’s selection of judges may limit investigations, subpoenas, prosecutions, etc. Of course, as we are comparing equal numbers of Presidents and years in office from the Democratic and Republican parties, the current President is not included.


      Full of shit? Lying? Trump Trash?

      A trifecta.

      1. I went and did a little investigation on which party is more corrupt.

        You must have looked real hard:

        At Rantt Media, we take the threat of radical right extremism very seriously. We have a partnership with the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR), whose team of PhDs, historians, professors, and experts on the radical right have published over two dozen articles on our site.

        Lmfao. Mother Jones was a little too objective for you?

        1. Those 30-40 convictions on the GOP side are a matter of public record. We can name names if you like.

          And that source omitted the 4-5 convictions (to date) of the Trump crime family.

          1. Lol. Maybe you should have simply asked the DNC to research it for you.

            Your work here is Trumpian. “I know the answer I want – I just need to find someone who’ll provide it”.

          2. Buttplug, Trump cultists are impervious to evidence. You can’t throw facts at them and expect them to accept truth.

            1. Their beliefs are not compatible with evidence. It’s not fair, really.

              See also evolution vs creationism taught in schools, which the same set of yokels still haven’t quite given up the fight on.

              1. Your speaker just banned “gendered” terms on the house floor

                1. And changed Latin phrasing to be gendered.

                2. Free speech becomes progressively (see what I did there?) less free.

              2. The study uses a subjective sorting method sweetie. Did you even bother to read the analysis?

            2. crimes this? Far left sources that get to determine what does and does not qualify as a political crime, ie a subjective measure, is the type of hard evidence you fully support right WK?

              Can I ask you want 2+2 is? 5?

            3. Wait, “impervious to evidence”? You’re projecting, Chipper. Reminds me of the time the GOP threw massive evidence in your face, which you were “impervious” to observing.

          3. Is this like the white nationalist study you used to post which included minorities committing murders as white nationalist crimes?

          4. I’m waiting for your conviction for child rape. Goddamn pedophile.

      2. “GOP Admins Had 38 Times More Criminal Convictions Than Democrats, 1961-2016”

        This is a strong indicator that Democrats are more corrupt, idiot.

        1. Republicans hold their own to a higher standard than Democrats do. That’s all that it means.

          1. Idiot.

            See below on how Franken and Hill were treated compared to GOP sick fucks like Larry Craig and Rick Scott.

            1. Franken flat out said he was picked as a fall guy because his seat was safe, while people in contested districts that did far worse got protected. Last I checked Franken wasn’t a republican.

            2. Joe Morrissey says hi. But you like pedos.

            3. You’re a pedophile. As are many, many democrats. Your party attracts people like you, as it doesn’t believe in morality.

            4. Katie Hill and Franklin were collateral damage from their own party’s #MeToo campaign, which was designed to take out Trump. Both of those assholes would still be in office if not for friendly fire.

      3. “GOP Admins Had 38 Times More Criminal Convictions Than Democrats, 1961-2016”

        That just proves that the Democrats are better at corruption and the GOP is as inept at corruption as they are at everything else.

        1. Sure, if you are using motivated reasoning and not trying to find objective truth.

          1. You’re a lying weasel. You have no place criticizing anyone or any group. You should thank people like me every day, for allowing a loathsome deviant like you to live.

          2. The objective truth in his post is that the Republicans are inept at everything.

            Pity you can’t admit that the Democrats (well known for their political corruption ie: Chicago, Tammany Hall, New Jersey) are bad in their own fun ways.

      4. So? That’ more than a little misleading. Democrats don’t prosecute other Democrats even when the crimes are obvious; rather, they circle the wagons and help run cover for other D’s corruption.

        Republicans, being generally more honorable, are more willing to weed out corruption even within their own ranks.

        As a result, you might reasonably expect to find such figures, not because Republicans are corrupt, but because Republicans are much more vigilant about prosecuting corruption no matter where it occurs.

        That’s exactly why Democrat run districts have a reputation for massive corruption: because the people that would be in the position to prosecute a fellow corrupt Democrat, are actually buddies with the criminal so they refuse to do their jobs.

        You guys are just sleazy swamp creatures, through and through! 🙂

        1. You’re full of shit. In Congress Democrats forced out Al Franken, Katie Hill, and Anthony Weiner on unproven allegations while the GOP protected the likes of Larry “Wide Stance” Craig and John Ensign who both served out their terms after guilty pleas.

          The GOP honors thieves like Duke Cunningham and that GOP Congressman Duncan Hunter. Rick Scott – another crook.

          1. Everyone reading this, OBSERVE THE MIND OF THE LIBERAL and how it applies to acknowledging the evidence of voter fraud.

            Al Franken: there’s literally a picture of him grabbing the breasts of a sleeping woman while laughing.

            Katie Hill: come on, we all saw the 3-way pics.

            Anthony Weiner: he tweeted dick pics to a minor, well documented.

            You claim these individuals were forced out over “unproven” allegations when there’s an obvious trail of photos a mile long. Compare how you interpret those events with how you interpret the evidence of fraud in the election: IF IT’S A DEMOCRAT, YOU SIMPLY REFUSE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the mind of the common liberal swamp creature.

            1. And you probably cried over the mean treatment of Kavanaugh (now one of the most powerful men in the country) and voted for Roy Moore enthusiastically.

              1. Cannot imagine why some might be irked that a dude is falsely accused of rape, repeatedly, by moronic liars.

                1. You had a speaker of the house for a long time who raped boys.

                  You have a president who used to ogle underage beauty pageant contestants and tell them it would be good for their chances of winning if they visited his penthouse.

                  Republicans are chock full of rapists. Rapists until proven innocent as far as I’m concnerned.

          2. Also see the commutation of Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to help the president.

            1. That just proves our point

              Republicans get convicted of things like lying, jaywalking, expired tags

              Meanwhile Democrats get away with things like rape, embezzlement, treason, all the freaking time. The ones who do get convicted have stopped being useful and/or their crimes are too big to ignore

              1. *lying about treason

                  1. No, the cosplay libs support the IC now.

      5. What does ‘Admins’ mean here? Executive officers? Something else?

        So let’s do 1961-2016, and Based on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

        Executive: 16(+10)R, 3D
        Legislative: 23R, 41D
        Judicial: 4R 8D

        -The parenthetical in executive is Watergate related convictions. That’s a pretty clear outlier event, and arguably should be mostly excluded on that alone. It’s also not 10 separate crimes, but really one crime. (One of them is also Nixon’s personal attorney – i’m reasonably sure that isn’t actually a US officer).
        -one of the R legislative convictions was for homosexuality. I’m torn about counting that one.
        -Even though indicted and convicted while Obama was president, I did not count Petraeus as a Democrat, because he wasn’t.

        Regardless, even if you count the watergate convictions, that’s not a 38:1 ratio of executive convictions. And democrat convictions among legislators and judges exceed republican convictions substantially.

        It’s also likely that how we consider and handle allegations against executive officers has changed (moreso than the other branches), likely in response to Watergate. Which means LBJ’s and Kennedy’s administrations probably got off easy, while Nixon is the first Republican administration in the range. There’s only 2 executive branch convictions in the entirety of US history before Nixon.

        Rantt’s inclusion criteria and flagging of administrations is questionable. They count Petraeus for Obama, for example, solely because the conviction happened during Obama’s tenure. Petraeus was of course a general long before Obama came along. (Nor was his conviction at all related to ‘corruption’.)

        The whole list flagrantly has this problem. Take Kyle Foggo – convicted under the W. Bush administration, he had a record of corruption inside the CIA going back 20 years. Why does W. Bush get the ‘blame’ for this? Bush never appointed him to anything (He was strictly promoted within the CIA). It would seem that Republican administrations could well be getting the blame for *catching* more corrupt behavior. Regardless, no objective assessment would treat longterm corruption by junior officers unappointed by the president as being corruption associated with the president under which they were prosecuted.

        Worse, if people commit crimes under one president, but aren’t caught and convicted until the next president, it counts them against the administration which caught and convicted them. Take, for example, Darleen Druyun. Appointed by Bill Clinton to be Undersecretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, she engaged in a pricing scam to favor her future employer Boeing, and was only prosecuted after she had left government service during W. Bush’s tenure. Rantt counts her against Bush, rather than against the president who appointed her.

        They also count people who weren’t even federal employees, like then-Mayor Henry Espy. (His brother was a federal employee, but he wasn’t). (That’s one of the ones that got counted against Clinton, btw, so their list has crazy in it even when looking at the ones they counted against democrats).

        So Rantt’s list isn’t even trustworthy once you get into the details.

        Rantt’s spin is also poor in other ways: it seeks to portray the *administration* as being corrupt, even though many of the crimes which people are convicted of are unrelated to their actions in government (examples: Claude Allen, convicted of felony theft from retail stores, or Wade Sanders, convicted of possession of child pornography), and indeed, representative of criminality that is not ‘corruption’.

        1. It’s probably worth emphasizing that ‘indicted, prosecuted, and convicted’ is a terrible measure of corruption or government misbehavior.

          Under JFK the FBI and CIA were up to all sorts of bad behavior, including colluding with the Mafia for a planned hit on Castro. No one was ever prosecuted for any of that. I wouldn’t call that lack of indictments an indication that there was no corruption.

        2. The media is also far more strict when covering Republican administrations, resulting in more public pressure and resulting legal action.

          There are many people who believe there were never any significant scandals in the 8 years of the Obama administration, for example. The most notorious example, of course, being Hillary Clinton who should have had the book thrown at her for destroying evidence and obstruction of Congress.

      6. So, Republicans are not as proficient at getting away with it?

    2. Dems also disputed the last 3 GOP election wins, but that is ancient history. Four years ago and all…

      1. It is not a challenge to the foundations of our DEMOCRACY if Democrats do it.

        1. Democracy means absolute, unquestioned rule by Democrats. It’s right there in the name. Anything that undermines the power of the Democrat party by definition undermines democracy.

      2. No they didn’t. Stop justifying your own bad behavior by lying on top of it.

        1. Yeah they did. And you have no business calling out anyone for dishonesty. You’re a huge liar.

        2. We have VIDEO of them doing that.

          1. Do you have video of them refusing to concede an election they lost? Because that’s what’s going on now.

            1. What does conceding have anything to do with it? There is nothing in the Constitution or any law that requires a sitting President to “concede”. If Trump insists on staying past Jan. 20, you’ll have a point.

              1. There isn’t a law about not taking a shit on the dinner table either, but at the very least we do not pretend like it’s normal behavior.

                The claim was that Democrats did what Trump is doing. They did not. They never have. Nobody has since Lincoln. And two wrongs don’t make a right anyway.

                The most absurd part of all this is how the people who insist they deserve power despite losing the election don’t have any fucking ideas or thoughts! They aren’t even selling anything! At least the Civil War had slavery. What is this even about? Gender-neutral pronouns?

    3. “Any political party that engages in deliberate attempts to undermine the democratic system deserves to lose.”
      … should be …
      “Any political party that engages in deliberate attempts to undermine democratic fraud deserves to lose.”

  5. Even more TDS from Boehm and Reason.

    How about an article revealing that the twp Dems in the Georgia Senate runoff are both far left socialists.

    1. That doesn’t matter, Bill, because Trump is such a selfish piece of garbage that he’s gonna make sure the Dems win. Regardless of how bad they are philosophically.

      All those progressive policies we’re gonna get shoved down our throat going forward should be placed at the feet of Trump.

      1. So you want to value signal instead of voting on actual actions. Amash? Is that you?

      2. I’ll place it at the feet of Libertarians.

      3. It is bizarre how much Trump and even McConnell at this point seem to be actively working to prevent the Repubs from winning the Senate.

    2. Reason is all in on being purely propaganda for the totalitarian state.
      Funny stuff.

      1. Why should Reason shill for Trump Trash?

        1. …Because Trump was all about limited government —- Duh…

      2. Why are you here? Do you comment at Daily Beast, or Vox, or HuffPo?

        1. How do you think we know you arguments before you make them WK?

        2. Because those sites shadow ban comments they disagree with. As liberal and unhinged as Reason is, at least they seem to allow uncensored comments.

          Probably the only thing drawing clicks here since nobody bothers to read their repetitive rubbish.

          1. ^Exactly This; The ‘Woke’ media community has ALREADY censored all non-Nazi’s from mainstream self-publication. It took me less than a week trying to promote the U.S. Constitution to be banned by EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM — except Reason.

  6. Oh darn it all anyway! Boehm the Biden-supporting rabid left-wing partisan Democrat is being forced to root for uniparty government by those evil Republicans!

  7. Hey remember when Reason wrote that Democrats *successfully* advocating for faithless electors and protesting the electoral college vote count in January 2017 after Trump won the 2016 election was undermining democracy and justified a permanent Republican uniparty government?

  8. Republicans have always been best when OUT of power, at least since Saint Ronaldus Maximus. And even he managed to bugger the spending.

    Out of power they want to block spending. In power they say “Hey, what’s this accelerator do? Let’s find out!”

    The best era in my lifetime was when Clinton was in office but Republicans controlled congress. We actually had a surplus (at least according to fictitious D.C. accounting methods). Our big worry then was midnight basketball. Imagine if all we had to worry about today was midnight basketball.

    Good government is government that can’t get anything done. Because anything government does is bad.

    1. That would be a solid point if the GOP didn’t have sooooo many RINO’S in it. But perhaps we can swing a deal with the [D] voter. You can have your [D] president so long as the [R] gets a good 80% in congress (to make up for all the RINO hacks).

  9. “It’s the perfect distillation of the dead-end conundrum of Trumpism: Republicans know that they can’t win without the kooks,” Carpenter wrote. “Republicans also know that they definitely might lose with them.”

    And of course, we know that libertarians have never, never been counted among “the kooks”.

    I submit the Republicans would be best served by severing any relationship with the libertarians. What support they might get on one issue will be offset by the back-stabbing they can rely on for a dozen others.

    1. That sentence caught my eye too. I think most articles have some good points to be said no matter what your viewpoint is. It makes me less likely though to digest when they’re blantant attack or emotional response sentences. As you said it could be said for Libertarians, The Pink hat and or Resist! crew, Antifa, the Mich. Warhammer folks, Q etc. I guess I find it tough to get with Eric if that’s the piece he’s gathering his thoughts from.

      1. correction *blatant

    2. I wonder if Boehm considers AOC and the rest of the squad (and others like them) to be kooks. Seems to me they qualify pretty easily.

      The same statement applies to the Dems. Neither party thinks they can win without their looks – that’s why both spend so much time trying to appease them.

      1. Few of the kooks on the left would tolerate destroying the constitution and democracy to win power.

        False equivalence, still a fallacy.

        1. You don’t believe in the constitution. Unless you can use it to your advantage. You have zero principles.

          1. The constitution doesn’t require belief. It requires men with guns to arrest people who violate it.

        2. It’s funny how you think people are inherently difference depending on their political affiliation.

          Tell me, how was it you became such a rabid progressive?

          1. Fantastic question. I started out as a Republican because that’s what my parents were. I have relatives who were Republican politicians in the 80s and 90s.

            They’re all decent people who don’t believe in shitting on blacks and Mexicans and gays, and now none of us are Republicans.

            For me the line in the sand was the Iraq War. I stopped believing that people who lied the country into a war deserved to have any power. And I was right.

            I’m a decent person who is well-read in history and politics and so I don’t believe that life is about stealing whatever you can steal before you die and calling it freedom.

            I found the Democrats because they were the only force in the universe that could keep Republicans from power.

            1. Oh, you have personal animus against Republicans. I get it. Now I understand why you are so intellectually dishonest in your positions. Sorry that Republicans touched you in such a bad spot.

    3. i think they did a pretty good job of severing those links when they first nominated Trump……

  10. The fact that one team might or might not have one more player than the other decides whether we tank the economy this way or that way, or currently law abiding people become felons this way or that way, or that our foreign policy will this way or that way is patently insane.

  11. …he writes, the last four years of other-side buffoonery completely gone from his memory.

  12. You don’t want divided government and never did, so stop lying you piece of shit. You’re a left liberal Block Yomommatard.

    1. Go fuck yourself Mikey.

      How is that Durham bullshit going by the way?

  13. Makes sense that Trump wants the dems to win both GA Senate seats. All the leftist SJW crap that will become law will be a great tool for his 2024 campaign. If the GOP wins and we have divided government, nobody will care.

    1. Such faith in The System!

  14. What would be fun is if Sasse and Romney decided that the Republican Party had strayed so far from anything they could support that they were declaring as independent and choosing to caucus with the Democrats robbing McConnell of his majority status.

    1. Authoritarianism is often described as fun by assholes.

    2. It would just escalate the current civil war. Democrats are making it necessary to eliminate them.

      How much are we going to take?

  15. A group of Republicans led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) announced over the weekend that they plan to object on Wednesday when the Senate goes through the usually-routine process of certifying the Electoral College vote.

    why would this make anyone stop wanting divided government under Biden? Unless you’re a partisan.

    1. Exactly. This is just an excuse to root for Democrats. The author is being dishonest in claiming to want divided government.

  16. A split decision Tuesday, pairing a single Republican victory with a single Republican loss, might do more to break the party’s Trump fever than a wipeout loss would.

    In the context of the pros and cons of divided government, how does “Trump fever” come into play and why would I care about that?

    A slim Republican Senate majority would maximize the leverage of moderate Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Mitt Romney (R–Utah)—who happen to be some of the senators least corrupted by Trumpism.

    Shilling for Romney now? Wth is happening over there at those cocktail parties?

    1. “In the context of the pros and cons of divided government, how does “Trump fever” come into play and why would I care about that?”

      in the terms that not everyone likes Trump, and even among conservatives, there are many who find this little coup attempt to be an abomination….. and in a state that trump lost, the two GOP candidates who were ahead in the general have been forced to attach themselves to his lunacy to avoid pissing off his base. (a base that might not bother to show up anyway if they think it is rigged.) these are two senate seats that would not be competitive for democrats if not for Trump’s behavior, and they are the difference between having a divided government or not…

      in short…. trump is burning down the GOP on his way out the door.

      1. The fact you would prefer the person with the GBD, CRT, gendered germs, increased regulation, higher taxes, etc as the candidate says more about you than anyone else.

        1. Sorry the guy trying to commit a coup believes so many things you believe.

          Maybe the problem is you.

          1. He can’t commit a coup against himself. He’s preventing one from commie trash.

            1. If commie trash gets more electoral votes, commie trash gets to be president.

              I’m really sorry we nominated Joe Biden and not someone more easily caricatured as a foreigner, like last time. But it is amusing watching you and Trump try the same playbook anyway. Joe Biden, from the state where more than a million corporations call headquarters. Yeah, total commie. Ha!

        2. where did i say i preferred anyone? i am trying to explain to your stupid ass how what trump is doing is BAD for the republican candidates and party……

      2. Lin Wood’s (and his fellow travelers’) insanity that Trump voters should just stay home because Trump lost will probably cost Republicans the election. At this point, I do expect at least one seat to be won by the Democrat.

  17. Eric, this is nonsense through and through. If you can’t tell the difference between nasty words and nasty ideas like the Green New Deal and Wokism (saying “Awoman” at the end of the House prayer, really?!?), then you haven’t been paying attention to the left. And if the only thing you get out of Trump is disgust at his rude, crude, lewd, and loud tweets, and that overrides whatever disgust you have at the Green New Deal and Wokism, then you are a TDS clown.

    I’d rather have politicians spouting nonsense like Trump and Cruz than have Biden, Kamala, Bernie, Lizzie, and AOC and her Squad trying to actually destroy liberty and the economy.

    1. Agreed!

    2. Good summation. What matters is what gets done, not what gets said.

  18. “…Americans who care about limiting the size and power of the federal government would be rooting for at least one Republican victory on Tuesday. That’s not because Republicans are actually committed to limiting the size and power of the federal government…”

    No, it’s because the Democrats think money is free and are primed to bail out blue state pension plans for a couple of trillion dollars, and want to finish off the economy by saddling it with Universal Basic Wealth Transfer forever.

    1. not to mention setting human society back at least 3 centuries with the Green Raw Deal.

  19. The last time the Dems controlled the presidency, the house, and the Senate we got PPACA.

    And nothing screams “libertarian” more than the government claiming it can regulate our economic decisions, right?

    There seems to be precious few actual libertarians in these parts since the orange man interrupted the leftward slide.

    1. maybe the great orange one should not be working so hard to give them full control…. since you seem to completely miss the point, Trumps actions are what will make such single party rule possible.

      1. You want to find any reason to justify your vote for the left. Just do it dummy. Be open about it. Be proud.

        1. i didn’t vote for “the left” and i don’t live in Georgia…… and none of that has anything to do with anything i said, because the point is that what trump is doing will make the left more likely to win……. supporting Trump, in this case…… is kinda making you the one pushing for the left…..

    2. One of Trump’s signature policy positions is to impose tariffs on countries he doesn’t like. Your economic decisions are and will be regulated. It just depends on what your values are.

      A free market is a fiction sold to you by people who benefit from tax and regulation cuts and the ability to sell basic needs at as much of a markup as possible.

      Worry about your own freedom and not just the freedom of CEOs, and see if we don’t end up better in the end.

      1. Is this your marketing pitch to sell socialism? It isn’t working.

        And stop talking about things you don’t understand. Which means you shouldn’t comment at all.

  20. before trump’s temper tantrum since the election, i thought the GOP had a lock on the runoffs….. and that was what i did and still do want….. but i think that trump has made this race hard to win for them now. what should have been an easy win has become an assault on anyone not a blind trump worshiper….. the very people that gave Biden the state while still supporting the senate candidate in the general…. if we don’t get the gridlock we should have, it will be Trump’s fault. if he had conceded, he could still throw his temper tantrum without it potentially having a negative impact on the run offs.

  21. Again, Reason, just all on board with Biden, clearly the most libertarian candidate ever.

    1. The GND didn’t convince you?

      1. Almost did. I’ve learned that we need to follow the edicts of a man who works closely with George Soros.

        1. Unreason tried to ignore that republicans will contest biden electoral votes.I warned them but they tried to say that Im delusional.

          They are the delusional ones. There is no upshot to biden being allowed to cheat his way to president. Democrats and their propagandists hate anyone who protects republicans, so why give in ever to democrats.

          1. Republicans dont normally cheat on elections so they had no idea that democrat s were so desperate to cheat on election 2020.

            Now that the democrat scheme has been exposed, the silent majority aint gonna let it happen. Sorry unreason commies.

            Funny story. My family got thousands of registered voters kicked off georgia voter rolls this weeks. They moved out of georgia and were till registered to vote. The funniest are the people referred for prosecution who submitted bogus addresses years ago to vote. Georgia allows for private individuals to submit arrest warrants for crimes. Those hundreds of voter fraudsters are getting interstate indictments for voter fraud. Hahaha. You democrats should have never tried to steal an election with such pubicility.

    2. More libertarian than Trump. Unless all libertarians care about are kleptocratic tax cuts. In which case what good are you?

      1. Trump actually got libertarian things done. Amash grandstand and lied.

  22. This is all about fundraising for Reason, isn’t it? The more likely the Democrats are in the power, the more likely they’ll pass laws that, while bad for the nation and libertarianism, are good for outrage and getting donations and subscriptions.

  23. Seems like a reasonable strategy hedge. If both blues win the administration is sure to go full tilt bat shit and almost certainly history repeats itself with both houses of congress flipping from blue to red as it did after Clinton’s down your throat excesses and this group gets to beat the anti-Biden drum. If one or two reds win, it’s still a win.

    1. Loeffler and perdue are winning Georgia. perdue beat ossoff by 80k votes on nov 3 even with massive democrat voter fraud.

      Notice how all the conspiracy narratives by lefties have proven false?

      Trump won GA, wi, mi, pa, az, and nv.

      Luckily, congressmen pick the slate of electors for president and state legislatures pick those electors. Not democrat governors and election officials.

      See the lefties squirm when their “long road to claim the bureaucracy” didnt work?

  24. Ppor unreason commies.

    Republicans win georgia senate race just like trump won georgia with legal votes.

    I bet the pRice of unreason that democrats say that trump has no case when perdue and loeffler win the GA us senate race tomorrow.

    Notice unreason staff too chicken shit to bet they quit if trump gets his second term as president.

  25. It’s amazing how upset feminized “men” are by Trump.
    They’re annoying, but hilariously transparent

    1. Almost no one more faux masculine than your cult leader. Fawns all over strong men because he wants to be one so bad, but everyone with eyes can see he is and always will be a giant puss. He’s the guy who would have 10 security guards “hold him back” if there was ever a hint of a fight for fear that he might have to take a punch.

      It’s no surprise that the faux masculine little keyboard warriors who think they have a set because they bought their first chest rig fawn over him. Couldn’t be more transparent with your projection of “feminized men”, you are pretty much textbook for it.

      1. ^case in point

    2. Trump wears as much makeup as a drag queen and is self-evidently the whiniest little bitch to ever hold this job. I know because nobody has ever thrown a tantrum about losing this much.

      1. You must be his spirit animal then.

    3. And let’s just unpack the belief that the only way to be a real man is to blindly worship at the feet of a ridiculous clown. What is being a masculine man to you? Not believing facts, not valuing norms of behavior, getting your way through paranoid ejaculations of raw force?

      You can like monster trucks but not opera, right? Because being a real man is about crushing shit, not subtlety. There is actually such a thing as being too educated to be a real man, am I right?

      If you were brown and lived somewhere else you’d be arguing that real manliness means forcing women to wear sheets over their faces and murdering anyone who hurts your feelings by looking at your woman the wrong way.

      We feminized soy boys call that toxic masculinity. We’re working on the problem. Because there is a conflict between what American culture expects of heterosexual males and what constitutes decent civilized behavior in the 21st century. You’re not equipped for modern life, and that’s the fault of your community.

      But you’d have to accept that you have a problem and not simply latch onto the nearest snake-oil peddler who tells you that it’s perfectly healthy to go through life hulk smashing everything and never thinking or feeling deeply.

      1. “And let’s just unpack the belief that the only way to be a real man is to blindly worship at the feet of a ridiculous clown. What is being a masculine man to you? Not believing facts, not valuing norms of behavior, getting your way through paranoid ejaculations of raw force?

        You just described Biden and your entire party. No dissent allowed. Pelosi banning words like ‘mother’, ‘father’, etc. from Congress. Everything you traitors do is based on lies, aggression, threats, and total ignorance.

        Your party believes in nothing normal, and you certainly are not.

      2. Oh, and you have no toxic masculinity. Or masculinity of any kind. You’re just a bunch of whiny little soy boy pussies. I’m sorry none of you got the beatings you needed in your formative years that would have thought you the painful lessons you so desperately need.

        And snake oil? You voted democrat. You’re soaking in it.

  26. Hello. Yes, it’s not necessary to follow any particular trading style or pattern one must adopt and create a new trading style according to the situation of the market and can earn good profit from it. Important is to have proper and full-fledged knowledge of the pattern which is been used.

  27. Gridlock fetishism is dumb. There’s no such thing as no policy. If Congress can’t pass laws, it can’t pass bad laws, but it also can’t pass good laws and it can’t get rid of bad laws. Undoubtedly the status quo does benefit some interests, specifically the ones who got their goodies set in law already.

    Even if both Democrats win, the power to make law will fall in the lap of Joe Manchin. That’s as good as gridlock for most purposes. What will change is Mitch McConnell will no longer be able to practice his theory of governing, a scorched-earth Manichaean certainty that has left us with all the glorious prosperity we see today. Careful not to step on any of the corpses on your way to the ATM to draw on your bounty.

    1. Sadly this is pretty true. Leaving the Senate in Republican control would be OK with a different leader.

      1. Trump has been a good leader overall. The problem with America is people who think like you. You are to blame.

    2. Tony, it is fundamentally naive to count on moderate Democrats to fix anything. There will be tremendous woke peer pressure on Manchin. And that will either deeply blue-ify him or maybe cause him to become red (can we dream? Would be a good laugh if Dems lost their moderate Senators to their own woke peer pressure after getting a New Years present of a split Senate).

      I do not have the same trust as you and would therefore favor a Congress that is really split.

      In either case, thank you for pointing out Manchin.


      1. Manchin is a Republican from 10 years ago. This is all normal talk when the real problem is Republicans of today are treasonous pigs in a decadent slide toward oblivion, and it’s our job to not let them bring the rest of us down with them.

        They haven’t had a good idea in the entire time either of us has been alive. It’s time to stop supporting them just because they attack the minority culture you’re annoyed with today.

        1. Yes Tony, thanks for pointing him out, I am aware he is a flip-flopper, and so I don’t trust him with any meaningful position. I have pointed out why I think he is not a good recipe to bring about any progress or balance (I think you wrote this before reading my other addendums).

          I do not support republicans for opposing a minority culture I am annoyed with. I support them in a very isolated way, on this particular issue, because the woke blue entitlement has gone overboard to the point were Biden was not ready to openly say that there won’t be any court packing with him when he was asked.

          If republicans haven’t had a good idea (rather subjective, but I will, for a moment, suppose it is true), I have to tell you something fundamental about good ideas: They can turn bad very fast if they are forced or blown out of proportion, or if their cost-benefit-ratio is evaluated poorly. You can’t make good politics from good ideas only, because there is no such thing as a fundamentally good idea if it is simply too much of it. Slow change allows for healthy adaptation. The radical change the left wants will wreck things.

          Why do you think your muscles grow slowly over time instead of instantaneously, even though you want them to grow so bad and lift so hard? It is because a system that adapts too fast is unstable. Evolution tells us this.

          1. The left doesn’t want radical change. In a world where they had all the levers of power, they would add to the New Deal consensus a universal healthcare scheme and revoke some of the obscene tax cuts that have served as Republicans’ single policy contribution to America in 40 years.

            Republicans want radical change. They want to tear down the New Deal consensus, yes of course, but they are also currently full-speed ahead on ripping apart the constitutional foundation of the country too. Largely because they can no longer win the popular vote and haven’t for decades now.

            Explain what radical change you think the left wants and I’ll explain to you why it’s far less of a concern than what Republicans are trying to do.

            1. “The left doesn’t want radical change.”

              I am glad you can trust that, facing a president that refused to address court packing. And said a bunch of weird things about the 2nd Amendment. And so on. I don’t want this character having a trifecta under his ass that pushes all sorts of nonsense. Bullying people with forcing gender pronouns on them is only a first step. In Canada you can now get in trouble, by law, if you refuse to use someone’s pronouns. That’s in the here and now. One country is already there.

              Now I won’t be able to address your next post because I have to go, but maybe later. You can explain to me why the above is less of a concern.

              1. You can’t get in trouble in Canada for using the wrong pronouns. Jordan Peterson may have gotten rich on that paranoid false assumption, but it’s still a lie.

                Pronoun use is entirely about good manners. It’s just not something you have to worry about. And the first amendment means they can’t make a law about how you use pronouns. Stop worrying what they’re telling you to worry about. They’re robbing you while they have you distracted. Of your vote and your money.

            2. “The left doesn’t want radical change”

              Narrator: “In fact, yes, the left does want radical change.”

              1. Not as radical as what we’re going through now. At least they still believe in democracy. Do you believe in democracy?

                1. Not as radical as what we are going through now? What does this even mean?

                  And yes I believe in democracy, just like most people in this country do, left and right. Though I know you pretend that Republican don’t, but that’s just because you have to make up false narratives about half the country because of some personal issues.

        2. Tony. You are the traitor. And all democrats. Plus RINOs.

          No democrat scum should EVER question the loyalty of an American.

    3. Also Manchin is a flip-flopper and seems pretty sociopathic, and I don’t trust the values of such a person for when they really have power. And having the last word on the Senate decisions would, in some cases, mean having more power than Trump had.

      Really, your example, Manchin, is not a bringer of checks or balance. He is one of the figures whose behavior I want to see being kept in check. And a blue House and President would be sufficient for that. In that context, he may act as an agent that balances out extreme blue-ification, or otherwise stay inert. But with blue being in charge and the ability to stir things greatly, I don’t trust his opportunistic brain to do the right thing.

      1. By “doing the right thing” I mean making decisions that don’t ignore and take a dump on the views of half of all voters in this country.

        You get a higher confidence level for “balance” with a small red margin over blue in the Senate, at least that’s how I see it.

        1. And as for abortion rights, well, Manchin would spoil any meaningful decision in favor of choice when it comes to abortion. So we might as well not put him in charge of anything, particularly not the last word in the Senate. A blue Senate costs too much in other respects. Top that with a semi-random character like a moderate or conservative Democrat in charge of the last word, you get dynamite. If you hypothesize for a moment that abortion rights were already intact in this country, it becomes immediately apparent how useless a character like Manchin is. You can’t count on him doing the right thing on any matter that matters, and what’s more he is a lousy balancer, by character.

          1. Geez it must look like i have no life

          2. I’m not making a normative judgment, just a descriptive one. If the two Democrats win, he’ll have the power to dictate terms on legislation. If they lose, that power will fall to Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and Manchin, and maybe one or two others. Except Mitch will still be in charge, and he will probably do what he did the last time a Democrat was in the Oval Office: hurt the country as much as possible so that the president gets the blame.

            You don’t have to have any partisan or political preferences to judge the moral quality of that kind of governing.

            1. I see, so you think McConnell is more harmful when in charge?

              There is something I like about the list of names you gave for the reddish option: “Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and Manchin, and maybe one or two others.”
              What I like is the fact that this list is longer than 1 element. So that would decentralize the decisions a bit, instead of giving them to one Joey McManchkin. But I guess if you see McConnell as more harmful, that’s a tie. However, McConnell on his own is also just McConnell in red Senate, with a blue president and House. As democrats like to wreck a country as well when it helps their political agenda, I still see more potential damage in a blue trifecta.

              Gridlock fetishism is not so dumb when you consider that without it, any path will lead to more problems. If you are on a junction that splits in a Y sort of way, and want to progress north, and one way goes north-west and the other goes north-east, well you take one of them, sure. But now, if in addition to that, the north-west branch has a hungry 16 ft crocodile on it and the north-east branch has a… well, another hungry 16 ft crocodile on it, what do you do then? If you don’t wanna shoot a crocodile or go completely off path, you will have to step back and wait until one of them is gone. The way have come to see gridlock. Sad, but oh well.

              1. I understand the pro-gridlock argument, but it’s hardly an ideal situation. It’s a stopgap when people you don’t like otherwise would be in charge.

                My view is simpler. Republicans are trying to kill America, so we should stop them. If that means Democrats pass a gender-neutral law, we’ll have to learn to live with the chaos that will undoubtedly cause.

                I’m not supporting Democrats because they are far leftists. I’m supporting them despite the fact that they’re feckless corporatists. They also happen to be the only force standing between Republicans and turning America into Russia.

                1. That’s a real risk, turning America into Russia. Therefore we may need the democrats. And we also don’t want to turn America into China. So we need the Republicans. If pathological stasis is what’s offered on the market right now, well, then be it so. Because ironically democrats are trying to kill America as well, in their own way. So my support for republicans at the moment is really very, very, local, until a third option is on the horizon. But even then, I would want slow progress that doesn’t break things. It’s hard to understand sometimes why we can’t always adapt right here, right now, but it usually just destroys stuff if we try. The easiest way to adapt your bones around an extreme force is by breaking them. Break enough of the bones in your political spine, you will start to subscribe to radicalism. That’s why I don’t like Shane Hazels identification with radicalism. It just breaks things. It is too fast.

                2. “Republicans are trying to kill America.”

                  Narrator: “In fact, Republicans were not trying to kill America.”

                  1. They just refused to seat an elected state senator in Pennsylvania.

                    Their president is calling for a coup.

                    They are trying to destroy America.

                    1. Your extremism and intellectual dishonesty is impressive. Trump is failing to concede (not a coup attempt) and there is challenge over a Pennsylvania Senator with stupid action by Repubs. Wow, your definition of destroying America is a low bar there.

                      Now go ahead and do the Russia collusion, using the instruments of state to spy on opposing candidates, jailing reporters, using the IRS against political opponents, and a laughable impeachment to remove a duly elected president?

                      Oh wait, I bet all of those things were cool for you because they went against Republicans.

                      The fact that you think Dems are some morally superior force is so comically it’s almost painful.

                    2. Tony, YOU are trying to destroy America. The rest of us are trying to save it. Progressives are the problem. You should stop before it’s too late for you.

                    3. So what would a coup attempt look like?

                      Would you still be making above-it-all ridiculously out of touch false equivalences if he somehow managed to get the military on his side, or would you notice it happening then?

                      Nobody said he wasn’t too fucking dumb to pull it off. But it’s a perfectly rational thing to believe that Democrats are morally superior to Republicans. It’s not a fucking high bar. It’s why they lost the last election.

    4. How often does Congress get rid of bad laws? It’s a trade-off. No “good” laws in exchange for “bad” laws not getting passed. It seems those “good” laws eventually become “bad” laws anyway after they’ve outlived their usefulness.

  28. “It’s the perfect distillation of the dead-end conundrum of Trumpism: Republicans know that they can’t win without the kooks,” Carpenter wrote. “Republicans also know that they definitely might lose with them.”

    It did of course not have to be this way. Republicans failed to keep the kooks in check at the start. By ignoring the “Birthers” and accepting the anti-immigrant crowd, the party open the door to these people. Rather than building broader support based on conservative free market ideas, they chose the angry white man for their base.

    I could say they can not run anything, but they are now so goofed up they can’t even be a good opposition party.

    1. See this “angry white man” babbling causes you to lose credit, and all comments that you do get after saying this kid of stuff will mock you. Like me. I am mocking you. See? Right here. The mock.

      1. Really, what has the Republican party done since George Bush to broaden its base of support? The fact is that Black, Hispanics and Asians all tend conservative. Yet Republican turn away from them. Look at the fraction of minorities and women in Republican Representatives or Senators. Republican have 1/2 number of women Senators and a 1/3 women Representative as Democrats.

        I am not far off the mark with old white man party.

        1. Republicans have historically not done a great job of reaching out to non white groups, but that’s changing. Just look at the huge number of female and/or minority GOP candidates in this election cycle. Not that you would have noticed. Since your fellow travelers in the democrat media won’t cover them.

          Also, don’t forget that your nominee and his closest runner up are the oldest, whitest male presidential candidates in Us history. With a running mate that cynically went along after attacking Biden for racism (quite rightly) in the primaries.

    2. It’s darker than that, in my opinion.

      The Confederacy never died. We didn’t kill it hard enough. But there has never been a time in American history when the rights of brown and black people haven’t been at the center of most political rifts.

      Wealthy interests care about getting more wealth. But when Republicans tried to loot the social safety net decade after decade, how did they sell it? How did they sell “small government”? Not by promising to take away your Social Security. By promising to take away *their* welfare.

      The goal is simple enough: loot the public wealth and take it for ourselves. But in a democracy, that’s a hard sell. So you have to feed on cultural resentments to get people to vote it away freely, in the hopes that they’re punishing the people they hate.

      “Small government” has always been a scam. And it’s always been intertwined with American racism. Nobody who says small government actually wants it. They don’t care how many trillions are spent at the Pentagon. They just want to hurt the people they scapegoat for their problems. And as for the wealthy, they of course are fine with defense contracts. They’re not fine with giving money to poor people who might thereby gain some agency.

      Not a single dime in savings has ever been realized when Republicans are in power. It wasn’t just an oopsie.

      1. Your incessant need to boil everything down to race is so trite and tired at this point.

        I wonder, will there ever be a time that progressives like you don’t have to keep resorting to identity politics and victim politics in order to gain power, or is this just a staple that will never go away?

        1. The only reason Republicans have any national power at all is because the system was set up with a bias in favor of pro-slavery states.

          The civil war was fought over slavery.

          Politics in the 20th century was defined along racial terms too, as I’ve described.

          The parties are sorted into a whites-only club and everyone else.

          Where is the not-race part of this?

          1. Nah, your 1619 project simplistic history is poor at best. I know you progressives love to hone in on race, as you need to divide the country in order to have government be the great savior, but it is intellectually bankrupt.

            I mean, the amount of nuance and context and more to the story that you leave out is so tremendous that it’s hard to understand where to begin.

            The Civil War was fought over slavery. Ironically, the party of slavery was the Democrat Party. It was the party of Lincoln that ended slavery. But I assume you’re one of those people that believes that all the racist Dems became Repubs and all the good Repubs became Dems, which of course is counter to the actual evidence.

            Race has been an issue in 20th century politics, just like many other subjects. But it is not what has defined politics. It has changed over time just like all other issues. And the parties are now sorted with minorities more common on the Dem side than the Repub side, but it’s not even remotely a binary split like you set forth. And the reason for this split is because Dems politically capitalized on race incitement and division. Again, Dems need the country to be divided for their ideology to be effective. If we as a country are not divided, government can’t operate as the savior.

            Ironically, most racial issues aren’t about race. But people like you incite them to be that way in order to gain political leverage from it. This has caused many minorities to start shifting to Repubs. There’s a reason Trump gained with everyone but white males. And that’s not because Repubs are the party of white supremacy like you claim. It’s because when a party like the Dems have become a bunch of elitist white people pandering, using, and patronizing minorities and filling their worlds with white savior complexes, it starts to get noticed.

            But, it is clear that Dems can’t win on policy, so race, identity and victimhood politics, and division is all they have to hold on to power.

          2. Tony, your party’s entire history is steeped in racism and slavery. It still is to this day.

  29. Damn those Republicans for making Boehm accept two raging statists!!!

    Damn them to Hell!

    Of course, it simply had to be Boehm writing this. He is the only one young enough to plausibly get away with penning it. All the rest being old enough to actually remember when Democrats did all the same things on multiple occasions over the last few Presidential election cycles.

    Boehm should change his name to Journolist Zero.

    1. No, Democrats did not do this same thing. And two wrongs don’t make a right anyway.

      So ends today’s lesson on how facts and morality works for kindergarteners.

      1. Democrats did so, and so much worse.

  30. This is so disingenuous. It’s concern trolling in an entire article.
    You don’t really care about divided government if you insist on using legally contesting the election as an excuse. You may disagree with the arguments presented to contest the election, but don’t pretend they matter to you. Plus, this is mischaracterizing the actual content of Trump’s phone call. Where was there any “pressure”? Where did Trump threaten to do anything? This was an argument where one side thought Trump won and the other side did not. Trump indicated he needed a certain number of votes to win, though he had claimed to have gotten much more. Even if Georgia flipped, that would still not be enough electoral votes for Trump to win. This was mainly about what he perceived as a fair election in Georgia. There are a couple of sentences that could be taken out of context to claim Trump was trying to “pressure” anyone. I don’t believe you even read the transcript.

  31. I think one of the most entertaining things about a libertarian website is how, for articles like this, commenters all play the game of my team is morally superior to your team.

    I mean, the amount of people using examples of Dem terrible behavior and Repub terrible behavior in order to try and own each other is literally the opposite of why I come to a libertarian website.

    Libertarian sites should be a bit of a rational bastion when it comes to such inane competitions. I mean, anyone claiming that their political team is morally superior or that their political party is populated by good people and the other side by bad people can get bent. Anyone seeking power over others will have moral failings and Dems and Repubs are both filled with disgusting human beings. So please stop with the my team is better than your team crap.

    All who hold power should be held to account and scrutinized. Playing tribal politics literally cuts against libertarian understanding that the real enemy is those in power, not dependent on what political party you belong to.

    1. Republicans will take your blind cynicism if they can’t get your vote.

      There’s gonna be a government with power over you. It’s gonna be that way until the day you die. So doesn’t it matter what kind of power is being exercised in that time?

      “Fascism, liberalism… it’s all the same to me. I’m above it all.” And what a bonus it is when the government in power is terrible. Just proves you right. And that’s what’s most important.

      1. I tried to follow your word salad, but it is so hard with how intellectually dishonest and scattered you are. You throw out falsities, strawman, and over generalizations like they are grains of sand on a beach. You are a good little progressive religious zealot, though. I will give you that.

        1. I suppose it’s only appropriate for libertarians to live in a bubble of one and not notice all the fascists trying to steal your political identity.

          But then maybe when you sit down in the quiet and think about it, you’re just a little bit more pissed off about gender-neutral bathrooms than you are the Christian Taliban and their plutocratic puppet masters.

          1. Tony, you’re the fascist. You are an evil person that wants to control everyone and supports people who will attempt to make it happen. You represent every dark and evil thing in the world.

            1. I only want to control the people who would do harm to me and my loved ones. That’s only natural isn’t it?

  32. We got the ideal result. The party that propped up the worst President in our history, and enabled a violent coup attempt that cost five lives (so far) including that of a police officer, has been taken out of power.
    The Democrats are far from perfect, but the Republican Party has done this country a disservice like no other. Had they tried and convicted Trump when he was impeached, we would not be in this situation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.