The Democratic Establishment Teamed Up With Trump To Oust Peter Meijer
Michigan's 3rd district has produced two consecutive freedom-oriented Republican lawmakers. Tuesday's results ensure that there won't be a third.

Shortly after voting to impeach former President Donald Trump for his role in instigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Peter Meijer (R–Mich.) issued one of the more reflective statements you're likely to find in a congressional press release.
"This vote is not a victory. It isn't a victory for my party, and it isn't the victory the Democrats might think it is. I'm not sure it is a victory for our country," Meijer, who was one of just 10 Republicans to vote for impeachment, and the only first-term GOP member to do so, said. "But it is a call to action for us to reflect on these events and seek ways to correct them."
Later, he told The Atlantic's Tim Alberta that the Republican Party needed an intervention over its addiction to Trump—he wanted to provide "hope for some who wanted to [see] the Republican Party get past the darkness and the violence and that sense of foreboding and doom," even if it cost him a long career in politics.
On Tuesday night, it did.
Meijer narrowly lost a primary contest in Michigan's 3rd district to a Trump-backed challenger, John Gibbs, who has echoed Trump's conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election. In a narrow sense, the result is yet another illustration of the current state of the GOP, where the former president's grievances continue to carry serious weight, particularly with the types of voters who turn out for primaries.
In that group of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, Meijer is now the second to lose a primary this year, following Rep. Tom Rice (R–S.C.). Four others retired rather than choosing to run again, and three are facing primary challenges later this year. Rep. David Valadao (R–Calif.) is the only member of the group to survive a primary so far.
But while Republican primary voters are ultimately responsible for the choices they make, the Democratic Party's cynical campaign strategies helped bring about last night's result.
As Reason's Robby Soave noted earlier this week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) spent $435,000 on an ad claiming that Gibbs was "too conservative" for western Michigan—effectively boosting the election-denying Trump-endorsed candidate. The spending was not trivial: it was 100 times more than what Trump had actually donated to Gibbs' campaign.
"Politics is a dirty game, and both parties routinely engage in this sort of brinkmanship, doing whatever it takes to win more seats," Soave wrote. "But Democrats boosting Gibbs are squandering considerable moral high ground they might have otherwise possessed on the issue of the so-called existential threat to democracy."
Given how close the race turned out to be—Gibbs won by fewer than 4,000 votes out of more than 104,000 votes cast—it's certainly possible that the DCCC ad made a difference.
Democrats have turned to this same playbook elsewhere. In the Republican gubernatorial primary in Pennsylvania, for example, an ad funded by the presumptive Democratic nominee helped elevate state Sen. Doug Mastriano (R–Fayetteville) above a crowded field of GOP contenders. Mastriano participated in the January 6 protest in D.C. His refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania has stoked worries that he would refuse to certify a prospective Democratic win in 2024 if he wins this year's election. (In Pennsylvania, elections are overseen by the secretary of state, a position appointed by the governor).
In a post for Common Sense, Meijer wrote that Democrats are making similar efforts to boost Trumpy candidates in Colorado, Maryland, and Illinois.
The January 6 riot should have been a warning to both parties about the potentially dangerous mixture of rage and conspiratorial thinking that increasingly dominates right-wing politics. Instead, it has become just another opportunity for playing politics, as Democrats have cynically elevated the right-wing fringe they condemn as a threat to the future of American democracy.
But there is an added irony to what happened last night in Michigan. For now, Meijer represents the same district that was previously the domain of Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-Libertarian congressman who was ejected from the GOP for frequently criticizing Trump and, ultimately, for supporting Trump's first impeachment. Michigan's 3rd district has produced two consecutive independent-thinking, freedom-oriented Republican lawmakers. Tuesday's results ensure that there won't be a third, thanks to both halves of the two-party system.
Like Meijer observed about the impeachment vote, Tuesday's election result isn't the victory Democrats might think it is.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The January 6 riot should have been a warning to both parties about the potentially dangerous mixture of rage and conspiratorial thinking that increasingly dominates right-wing politics. Instead, it has become just another opportunity for playing politics, as Democrats have cynically elevated the right-wing fringe they condemn as a threat to the future of American democracy."
Perhaps the Democrats aren't necessarily opposed to rage and conspiratorial thinking?
I currently presently not at any point figured out like it’s far even conceivable yet one in everything about partner buddy made $27,000 best inside about a month essentially completing this smooth chance and moreover she has provoked me to benefit. forward-thinking data on:-
.
Visiting following site:>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Critical Theory, for instance, strikes me as being conspiratorial in its essential assumptions. Also, the malevolence of "Big X" industries is another example . The Left must does not catch grief for their conspicacies.
I made $30k in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money on-line by:-
Reading this article:>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Dems aren't opposed to rage or conspiratorial thinking in the slightest. Their rage has manifest in a Congressional baseball field shooting, arson, looting, rioting and an attack on the White House. Their conspiratorial thinking led to a 2-year multi-million dollar investigation into allegations Trump was secretly a Russian spy.
When Dems get caught raging, the events get treated as one-offs in the bare minimum coverage they get from the MSM. When Republicans get caught raging, it becomes the subject of the largest DOJ investigation, plus overarching media narrative for 18 months running, plus a scripted prime-time congressional hearing in which all the normal parliamentary rules of the house are tossed aside.
When Repubs get conspiratorial, the initial reaction from the media is that dismissed as wackos. Social media kicks them off their platforms. They might even be stripped of their committee assignments in Congress, where applicable. When Dems get conspiratorial, the first instinct of the media is to accept the Dem theories at face value and offer the most timid mea culpa (if even that) when the facts of the conspiracy don't pan out. The DOJ will indulge these conspiracies and even invent process crimes against target subjects when the underlying allegations don't pan out.
Both sides are prone to their conspiracies. One side is mocked and ridiculed while the other side is given the benefit of the doubt by the most powerful institutions in our government.
Is something a conspiracy if it is true? We still have no definitive answers on the 2020 elections, all attempts to prove fraud or exonerate the accused were stopped. That alone makes me wonder?
Whether there was legal fraud/election jiggering might be a question, but it’s clear that the fortification absolutely screwed Trump and the rest of the nation regardless.
Occasionally I wonder if, as long as we are passing a bunch of unlibertarian laws, what would happen if campaign contributions could only come from those eligible to vote for the candidate?
So no CA money for Kansas measures, no corporate donations, no union contributions, etc.
(and spare me your first amendment bullshit until asset forfeiture and gun control are in the memory hole)
I have thought about that, but it prevents me from donating to a libertarian organization out of state that might be supporting a candidate. Soft money is soft for a reason. If there's a good libertarian candidate out of state that has a good shot of winning, why can't I donate to his state party? Or even fly out there and walk precincts?
Or what about PACs, like a PAC to promote the values I want promoted (Free Market PAC, etc)?
I know it gets sticky, but in the end, I say no to these rules.
"and spare me your first amendment bullshit until asset forfeiture and gun control are in the memory hole"
No constitutional rights anybody until nobody is even thinking about do anything I dislike! (What a promoter of liberty you are!)
I have some concerns about how government enforcing speech laws might impact the ability to fight gun control and asset forfeiture.
and spare me your first amendment bullshit until asset forfeiture and gun control are in the memory hole
Except that has to be taken in to consideration.
And in some cases, this sort f thing needs to be put to campaigning advantage. If Greg Abbott and Brian Kemp aren't calling O'Rourke and Abrams "the best candidates for California, because that's where all their money is coming from," it just shows how useless GOP ultimately is at going for the throat when it matters.
Or in the case of issues like employees of the Tech Trust or Hollywood donating to Democrats at a 90-plus percent clip--"Look how much these people who hate you are giving to my opponent."
They’re not the stupid party for nothing.
"I wonder if, as long as we are passing a bunch of unlibertarian laws, what would happen if campaign contributions could only come from those eligible to vote for the candidate?"
What would happen, is you would no longer be free to help candidates that you cannot vote for. That's less freedom, not more.
Take the better approach: get government out of the "reasonable regulation" business, in favor of better regulation by free markets. With no ability to pick winners/losers in commerce, greedy rent-seeking rich people will have nothing to buy from the politicians. That's the libertarian approach. Your approach is statist.
How about multi candidate races with either automatic runoffs or ranked choice? Pick whichever you like best, or a hybrid. But more candidates with some form of addressing less than 50% winner in primaries seems the best way to address extremism, name recognition voting (and thus career politicians) and outside interference. It isn't perfect but I think it would be better system. I'm not talking necessarily for general elections but for primaries. Though automatic run offs nationwide may allow more third party participation while insuring that the elected representatives reach 50% of the vote minimum. And if everyone knew that this was the system I think you would increase voter participation in run off elections, as they would be more common and almost expected.
In a narrow sense, the result is yet another illustration of the current state of the GOP, where the former president's grievances continue to carry serious weight, particularly with the types of voters who turn out for primaries.
I think it also strongly shows what a shitty job the media and the government did to address those grievances. The dismissals-both in the legal and colloquial sense-prevented people from being heard in their concerns about election integrity, and the censorship only convinced them that there was something to hide. It doesn't help that courts in many states have subsequent ruled that changes in procedures, especially regarding ballot drop-boxes, were a violation of election law.
You can blame Trump for putting a loudspeaker on all the claims of fraud and riling up his constituents, but the fact that claims were dismissed prior to any investigation made people feel they were being lied. Even if later investigations found certain claims were false, the premature dismissal makes it all feel like a cover-up.
The way to ensure faith in institutions is transparency and the institutions have failed in maintaining that faith.
Well said. It doesn't matter how clean the election was or was not. If half the country thinks it was dirty, then the effect is the same regardless of the truth of the matter. It is not enough for an election to be clean. It has to be clean in a way that inspires the trust and faith of the voters.
Even if you think the 2020 election was totally on the up and up, it still is not a legitimate election because a large portion of the country doesn't see it as such. And the reasons they don't see it as legitimate are the things you list. You can't dismiss concerns about an election out of hand and tell the public "you can't say that" and then expect that same public to have any faith in your assurances about the election. In the end, no one really knows if the election was clean. Whether you think it was or not really comes down to whether you are willing to believe the government assurances that it was.
There's an additional issue I have with the discussion on both sides, which is "fraud" is used pretty fast and loose in discussion and is redefined as needed to support an argument either way.
They also can't address the issues because they cheated their asses off and have no legitimate explanation.
They've taken the only course they CAN take and still get what they want.
“You can't dismiss concerns about an election out of hand and tell the public "you can't say that" and then expect that same public to have any faith in your assurances about the election.”
Especially when the same people were telling everyone they couldn’t say the virus was from a lab and lockdowns weren’t effective.
"Especially when the same people were telling everyone they couldn’t say the virus was from a lab and lockdowns weren’t effective."
These were also the same people that had no issues voicing their "concerns" about the 2016 election.
I wish average conversation could be a little more mediated.
So, I'm not very stressed about the election results, especially compared to a lot of people here. I buy into the idea that the amount of fraud wasn't enough to swing the election.
I also was frustrated by the amount of people after the election saying there was no fraud. That was a common line. And if they were shown there were cases of fraud, they would move to the stance that there wasn't enough to change an election and so don't worry about it.
The Mott and Bailey argument there bothers me a lot, and it was and is widely used. But I also don't like the idea that anyone concerned about election integrity at any level is basically irrational. Elections are quite core to their system, and the presence of fraud and feeling that fraud isn't being taken seriously is corrosive.
I think it was here, a while back I was saying that they should straight up just put up some group every single election to aggressively pursue fraud. I think it wouldn't be too expensive by government standards and I think, over time, could help alleviate many concerns people have there. It would not be perfect, but there is value in symbolic actions when it represents something viewed as a good.
"So, I'm not very stressed about the election results, especially compared to a lot of people here. I buy into the idea that the amount of fraud wasn't enough to swing the election"
Enjoy the totalitarian hell you've invited with your willful ignorance.
Somehow the willfully ignorant are to blame for the election results. But what have the enlightened done about it? except bitch on comments threads, web-wide?
Was there some moment we were going to overturn the election and take back the country? If only a few more people had believed in the greatest fraud perpetrated in history?
"If only a few more people had believed in the greatest fraud perpetrated in history?"
You talking about anthropogenic global climate change warming? Or covid? Maybe systemic racism, microaggressions, and the 1619 project? Perhaps russiagate?
People constantly granting undue credit for good faith intent to proven corrupt liars and refusing to face the actual nature of threats to our liberty and livelihoods is a big fucking problem.
People constantly granting undue credit for good faith intent to proven corrupt liars and refusing to face the actual nature of threats to our liberty and livelihoods is a big fucking problem.
Fair enough. I’m genuinely not sure there was fraud on a scale to flip the election. But if there was I’m not sure what the hell anyones going to do about it.
What hasn’t been solved on your end is what comes next after a bunch of people decide they’ve had enough. You gonna blow up a federal building with a day care in it?
Kidnap some kid and hold him in a hole on your property until the authorities make the country free again? Maybe have a demonstration and take it to the people’s house, the capital building?
None of this country’s institutions (outside of a portion a few state legislatures )were willing to touch the elections with a ten foot pole.
But even if some were, Suddenly flipping election results and negating everything that’s happened afterwards will destroy any illusion of legitimacy for at least half the country and probably wind up with that civil war everybody wants so damned bad.
What states or portions of the military do you have on your side? What’s the plan? What’s the watch word for “it’s go time NOW”?
It’s seems to me all anyone has up their sleeve is to pull a Waco here or there. Which may garner some sympathy, but it’s not a terribly effective winning solution without a perfect series of circumstances afterwards.
So, I'm not very stressed about the election results, especially compared to a lot of people here. I buy into the idea that the amount of fraud wasn't enough to swing the election.
I'm with you, but the media tried to push it as the cleanest election ever and laughed off any concerns about mail-in balloting. It shut down people who needed reassurances that the election was clean and fair. And dismissing lawsuits for lack of standing from the campaign before they could even proceed is problematic-Gore and Bush both got to put their cases before courts in 2000.
Didn't Joe Biden do just that?
we have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.
What happened to that group? What did they organize for exactly?
A question I keep asking and never get the answer to. What, exactly, was he preparing for? Legal battles? Rejecting state electors and providing 'alternative' slates? Why would he do that if 2020 was the cleanest election ever?
I just started reading Rigged by Mollie Hemingway. The legal battles were a big part of the plan especially after the 2016 elections. Mark Elias is a name to look into. Clinton advisor for the election then worked on the Steele Dossier.
Or the organization could have been the Cabal Time Magazine described in its bragging piece.
Either way, I'm with you. Who were the people in the Fraud group and what did they do?
Bingo. I'm in the same boat. The changes were bad, and certain to cause hostility, while the medias reaction was completely unhinged and fed into this hostility, while those who have paid attention, have seen that there was some level of fraud and law breaking.
The question isn't rather there was fraud but how much fraud is acceptable? And Reason ignores this in every story about it. Mainly to push the current urban zeitgeist right is the unhinged party.
Also, while I condemned Trump's speech, I also don't think it was impeachable and am opposed to all politicians who pushed this impeachment or supported it. I don't think either impeachment has any libertarian principles, definitely not classically liberal principles.
"it also strongly shows what a shitty job the media and the government did to address those grievances"
They didn't do a shitty job.
The illegitimate regime is in power, and the streets haven't been flooded by leftist blood for their unforgivable transgressions of 2020.
There is no coming back from what they did.
Kill, or be killed.
A lot of good points in this thread. The only point I differ on (besides Nardz' tirade) is that any amount of transparency or fraud investigative agency could restore faith in an election. No one trusts any source that say's something they don't want to believe... and there's good reason not to. The government lied to us too many times. The media lied to us too many times.
Remember when we used to say, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts,"? Now you're entitled to your own facts too.
Fuck off, little bitch.
You want to lie to yourself? Fine.
You want to lie to others? You're an evil piece of shit.
How the hell are so many of you still living in denial of the writing on the wall since 2020?
Find me one piece of supporting evidence for the claim of a Biden victory. Just one beyond the lie of the final results. One circumstantial fact that is consistent with Biden defeating Trump.
I'm curious what your goals are. You're not winning people over to your side by calling them names if they disagree with you on certain facts.
I don't really give a shit whether people like what I'm saying or not. If that's what I was going for, I'd just lie or be passive-aggressive like everybody else.
Physics is inescapable, and truth has mass that hits.
You clearly do give a shit, that's why you're commenting here and putting it out in public instead of saying it quietly to yourself. I don't find people who say, "I don't give a shit what people think about what I have to say" very convincing. Clearly you're here for some kind of audience.
"I don't really give a shit whether people LIKE what I'm saying or not."
Truth has an impact on the nerves, even when the recipient consciously tries to fight it.
But that's just the problem. There's nothing I could show you that you would accept as evidence that Biden won and there's probably nothing you could show me to convince me Trump won. We trust/distrust different sources. I don't see the writing on the wall that you see. If I find out I'm wrong in a few years, I won't be too surprised though.
What about Time magazine saying the quiet part out loud? Did you believe that?
this. they put the fucking blueprint in a news(?) magazine.
And that's just what they admitted to...
Hi R Mac,
I think it's much ado about little. There is no mention of rigging. A bunch of liberals, some wealthy, using their money and influence to oppose Trump: no kidding. Dems trying to get mail in ballots and increase black voter turn out: obvious, but not rigging. Nothing about fraud. I think the article is written by a clueless liberal that thinks Trump and his supporters are sub-human and writes an article to claim how moral liberals saved the world from Trump having no awareness that half the country would think it's wrong. So ultimately, a bunch of liberals doing all they could to defeat Trump which does not seem unusual in a US election. The story is a year and a half old. If there was anything in there, why hasn't it been flushed out by conservatives yet?
There have been several issues that have been raised that definitely bring up things that bear further investigation, however, they tend to come from 'the wrong' news outlets so they've been ignored. I mean actual proof of illegal voting, probable ballot stuffing, coerced voting, etc, in mainly swing states. And possibly enough to impact outcomes in swing states. So, yes conservatives have continued to expose questionable things, even some proof, but it's been largely ignored because it comes from 'the right', going back to your point about viewpoints.
For the most part the media has ignored it or attacked the source rather than the data. As a result, a large portion of the country isn't even aware of it. I'm only aware of it because sites like RealClearPolitics runs stories from both sides and from independent sites such as Substack (which also has exposed some of this). I have to say that some of the arguments are fairly persuasive, and I'm not a supporter of it was stolen crowd. But I'm definitely becoming more, there was a fucking ton of smoke, and I'm far more open to the idea that there may have been a fire now then I was in January 2021.
I'll have to check out RealClearPolitics. My beliefs are not far off from yours about the media and the election.
So you didn’t believe it.
I was avoiding saying that, but yeah,basically. I'd sum it up like Dave Smith (who was quoting someone else I can't remember) said in his recent John Oliver podcast: it is factual, but not true.
"But that's just the problem. There's nothing I could show you that you would accept as evidence that Biden won"
Well isn't that fucking convenient.
"I have no evidence or argument for my belief whatsoever, but it's your fault"
I'm not blaming you. I am just aware that we are very different in our beliefs. It is convenient that I have no desire to try to change your mind however.
"there's probably nothing you could show me to convince me Trump won"
Obviously, Trump didn't win. He's not president, and the country is completely fucked.
That result wasn't arrived at legitimately, and you've restated the argument to suit your dishonest conclusion.
Nitpick. You know what I meant.
"We trust/distrust different sources."
We're not talking about "sources", we're talking about fucking facts (like Trump improving his vote total received by at least 20% from 2016 to 2020, 18/19 "bellwether" counties going for Trump, Ohio+Florida going for Trump, etc) and evidence (rally attendance, campaign strategies, rhetoric such as Biden's infamous "vote fraud team" slip or Pelosi's pre election prediction that they'll "come up with" enough mail in ballots to overcome Trump's lead AFTER election day, outright lies used to delay vote counts seemingly coordinated among a half dozen different states, all the actual fraud found by people such as D'Souza or Crowder, Biden receiving absurd vote ratios in various batches, etc). Not to mention the courts' odd refusals to pass any judgement on illegal procedure changes until well after inauguration.
Sources don't much matter when the facts are agreed upon, and your sources still can't account for how the facts that even they admit can be consistent with a legitimate Biden victory.
The predominant narratives to "explain" the 2020 election:
-"Trump was his own worst enemy and caused his own loss"
A favorite among some here, but belied by the facts. Huge public displays of support, far bigger in 2020 than 2016, and increased votes received by at least 20%
-"Trump was so hated by people that it created enthusiasm greater than ever before in history"
I'm sure this feels true to the haters, but it flies in the face of basic human behavior and recorded history. Plus, Trump improved among all the demographics that were supposed to hate him most. The same sources are telling contradictory stories here.
-"Just shut up and accept what we tell you"
The liar's easiest defense.
"Sources don't much matter when the facts are agreed upon." Right! There's our problem.
What facts are you disputing?
None stated here.
Then how do you reconcile them with an official result they are clearly inconsistent with?
The facts you give are evidence that support your claim, but are not conclusive. How many precincts are there? There will be statistical anomalies. As in every election there was fraud, but was it an unusual amount? No doubt voting laws and mail in ballot changes were implemented to favor Biden, but this was in the open and falls short of fraud.
"Sure, all the evidence points to Biden's election being illegitimate, but who cares?"
This is not ALL the evidence.
"This is not ALL the evidence."
And yet you haven't mentioned any shred of evidence to support your belief.
True. Because I'm not trying to convince anybody of my belief.
Brix, it takes time to prove what we Trump supporters know--the election was stolen. The movie, "2000 Mules", goes a long way toward presenting that proof.
Thanks. I will do my best to keep an open mind as the evidence comes in. As I said, if it plays out this way, I won't be too surprised. We live in a time where the truth is very hard to ascertain. I make make judgment calls like everyone, but I've been wrong before.
And apparently your judges call was to believe a number of statistical anomalies occurred, in this one election for the first time ever, without any significant wrongdoing by career government officials who stood to profit greatly from a Biden presidency...
Well, here is a source that explains how many of these anomalies are not anomalies at all. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2103619118
But now we're back to who trusts which sources.
Ah, a paper that handwaves away glaring anomalies and declares "the apparently absurd and inconsistent data isn't actually absurd and inconsistent, because shut up!"
I rest my case.
Censoring people was the wrong decision, though, because it only entrenched people further into their views. When they feel like they're not able to speak and be heard, they get more extreme.
Yes, I absolutely agree.
And not just that. We've seen several instances where what was censored turned out to be true.
By happenstance, I’m sure.
I’m torn. I used to eagerly look forward to a tune when the media would hang itself.
To many, it appears they’ve done so, and now a critical mass of people simply don’t have any real sources of information we can trust.
America, in part, is possible because we’ve been a high trust society for a long time. Now that the trust in society is lost, or at least greatly diminished, things are falling to pieces, and I’m not convinced they’re going to get any better.
The fundamental problem with the 2020 election was that numerous states violated their own laws, either because election officials or courts decided it was the right thing.
The only correct thing to have done would have been to throw out all affected ballots. Instead, officials tried to count as many ballots as possible and tried to divine voter intent.
This is why the 2020 election is b.s.
US elections just don’t follow the rule of law.
Looks like Reason has determined that there was no election fraud giving Biden the win. From an Oct 2021 article:
"In the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, 56% of respondents said, 'It’s likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 41% who say it’s ‘very likely.’”
When I went to bed on election night, the gamblers were giving Trump over 90% chance to win. Then we saw huge batches of nearly 100% Biden votes show up in counties run by Democrats in swing states at 3 AM. I believe the Democrats stole the election because they knew they wouldn't win. They just didn't expect to have to print up so many votes at the last minute (or change the votes via the Dominion voting system adjudication process).
Further, everything the Democrats said about Trump turned out to be lies they made up. They are untrustworthy. And to be fair, so are the RINOs.
Yeah about 10 pm local time the media coverage on CNN and MSNBC looked like a repeat of 2016. They even had a watch going as to when Biden would come out and give his concession speech.
I think that right then was what raised the most questions the next day. Even MSNBC and CNN were expecting Biden to concede and that he had no chance to win. And for most workers, 10 pm CST is past their bed time or around it.
"It doesn't help that courts in many states have subsequent ruled that changes in procedures, especially regarding ballot drop-boxes, were a violation of election law."
Trump cried "fraud", which the media has focused on to mean "people who pretended to be someone else in order to vote" but this should have been seen to include the irregularities that where known at the time and have since been ruled to have been illegal. Some state Supreme Courts have held that drop boxes, etc. were not, in fact, legal at the time.
Wisconsin, in particular, has basically disavowed its previous ruling Trump v Biden:
"II. The Majority's Error in Trump
¶124 Although the memos should not have the force of law,
the majority erroneously concluded otherwise in Trump.
...
In Trump, a majority of this court allowed its notions of "equity" and "unfair[ness]" to trump the law.
...
Wisconsin Stat. § 6.87(6d) provides, "[i]f a certificate is missing the address of a witness, the ballot may not be counted." The majority defied this clear textual command because it was concerned that "election officials followed guidance that WEC created, approved, and disseminated to counties in October 2016."
...
¶128 Under Trump, statements from WEC's staff were
transformed into super-statutes, trumping the actual law.
...
¶129 The holding in Trump requires a vote cast in reliance
on a document produced by the WEC's staff to be counted even if
the vote's counting is unlawful under the statute the staff
purportedly interpreted. The majority did not ground its
decision in constitutional law but in equity.
...
¶139 In his concurrence, Justice Brian Hagedorn attempts to
backtrack from the majority opinion he authored in Trump.
Whether expressed metaphorically or otherwise, the Trump
majority not only labeled WEC's guidance the "rulebook"——it
treated it as such, elevating it over statutory law. See supra
¶¶124–26. This concurrence does not advance a new legal
analysis; the dissent in Trump explained the upshot of the
majority's treatment of WEC's pronouncements on the law, which
the majority never disavowed: "the majority commits grave error
by according WEC guidance the force of law . . . . How
astonishing that four justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
must be reminded that it is THE LAW that constitutes 'the
rulebook' for any election——not WEC guidance——and election
officials are bound to follow the law, if we are to be governed
by the rule of law, and not of men."
Exactly this.
I don’t know if there was fraud because virtually all conversation about it has been verboten. Everything but what one side wants you to hear is suppressed, and everything that side has to say is self-serving and highly filtered and scripted.
Whether there was no corruption is beside the point. Everything they’ve done makes sure that I can’t know what happened, and that’s enough to cast doubt, especially when they so gleefully trumpeted The Fortification within a couple of months of the election.
Maybe voting to impeach a President who is supported by 90% of the voters in your party is a really bad idea if you want to stay in office? This guy is just an example of political Darwinism at work.
Yep, fuck him.
And yet it's the OTHER party who is contributing to his opponent. Did you miss the headline to this article?
DEMOCRATS TEAM UP WITH TRUMP TO DEFEAT MEIJER
He pretended the Democrats were honorable and got taken down by a punch to the nuts. That is on him.
Yeah. That is why he lost. The evil Democrats just fooled all of the primary voters. That is what happened. It wasn't that the large majority of GOP primary voters were angry and voting against him because of his impeachment vote. Nope.
Come on.
The majority of voters belong to neither party.
Not in the primary you half wit.
Half is generous
Michigan has an open primary, so anyone can vote regardless of party affiliation (or lack of one). See https://www.openprimaries.org/states_michigan/.
I did this myself yesterday in Missouri -- voted the Republican primary ballot just to vote against Eric Greitens, even tho I'm not a Republican and rarely vote in primaries.
Are you claiming that most people that voted in the primary aren’t in a party though?
I agree with Briggs I don't think that money did anything but make someone richer kinda of a far stretch to believe that did mass damage.....
You’re falsely assuming that the Democrats made a difference.
Meijer is an ultra wealthy trust fund baby; there is nothing Democrats could give him he didn’t already have.
He either impeached Trump thinking he was acting in the good faith of country over party or in the bad faith of screwing his party to be on the winning team as they exercised pure unchecked majoritarian power.
If the first case, he was naive to think the Dems were sincere in their impeachment case against Trump, rather than simply exercising their raw, cynical political power.
If the second case, he was extremely naive to think that he would be accepted and protected by the Dems despite knowing their propensity to act on raw, unprincipled, tribalistic, majoritarian power.
I don't see how anyone who voted to impeach Trump (who I think is a liar and a grifter) at least the second time could have been acting in "good faith" because they were rushing to do it before any sort of investigation had been conducted to determine what the actual facts were. This was pretty much a case of "verdict first, trial second (maybe)."
Reason writers and others who pretend to have principles continue to be surprised by voters who actually have principles.
Don’t these voters know they’ll lose their chance to go to dinner parties in DC? What’s wrong with them?
The reason staff, being millennial leftists, can't understand or fathom how anyone could reasonably have opinions different from theirs. The problem here, if there is one, isn't about principles. It is about the voters' perception of the 2020 election. Reason has a different perception. Rather than admitting that, reason just calls them unprincipled.
You don’t have to be all in for a specific conspiracy narrative to reject bullies and censors and their enablers.
Republicans don’t owe loyalty to any particular election narrative. People can believe as they choose.
There’s been no attempt to reach out to any voters and address their concerns on the election process. That subset of the electorate just keeps getting told to fuck off.
Reason is staffed by a bunch of lying leftist midwits. They believe and repeat what they're told to.
"The reason staff, being millennial leftists, can't understand or fathom how anyone could reasonably have opinions different from theirs. "
Oh, they certainly can; it's just that they think it is coming from a place of ignorance and with enough education, the people with different opinions will eventually come to the "correct" beliefs.
And if they don’t come to the correct beliefs by themselves, there is always state psychiatry and labor camps, favorites of the left.
"But Democrats boosting Gibbs are squandering considerable moral high ground they might have otherwise possessed on the issue of the so-called existential threat to democracy."
The idea that they ever had the high ground is delusional. All they've ever meant by an "existential threat to democracy" is that they might not win an election.
The whole Russians Stole the 2016 Election propaganda campaign proved they have no moral high ground.
Or George Bush was selected by the Supreme Court nonsense in 2000. I know plenty of people who somehow have convinced themselves that it was different when they did it. These people will rationalize anything.
The whole idea of "moral high ground" is just people making up stories about themselves.
Dems make claims about their so-called "virtue" to justify launching attacks on other people. As if launching attacks were somehow virtuous…
If you pray to Alinsky, launching attacks on people is virtuous to you.
"Our democracy" is a leftist LIE. Our brilliant founders knew that de-mob-ocracy had failed the ancient Greeks and mandated a republic in Article 4, Section 4, U. S. Constitution.
>>Shortly after voting to impeach former President Donald Trump for his role in instigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Peter Meijer
lost his job. bueno. idiota.
+1
This comment section really needs an "up vote" option.
Voting for sham impeachments is “Freedom Loving” now? GFY
Remember how all through 2020 reason was all about "mostly peaceful protests" and how groovy it was to try and burn down the White House and tear down all of the monuments? Something radically changed on January 6th and suddenly protesting was sedition and an INSURECTION!!
Funny that.
And now protesting is good again, as long as it's against the supreme court.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/supreme-court-losses-reveal-ugly
These rulings have (once again) revealed the hypocrisy of the left. They have the exact same political principles as tantrum-throwing toddlers. But shouting “I want this and will scream until I get my way” is no way to go through life. Even worse is vandalizing and burning pregnancy centers while doing it.
So now we’re at this sort-of embarrassing moment where Democrats have to be outraged about the events of January 6th, while staunchly ignoring the political violence that preceded that date AND the political violence since. They have to claim to be for our sacred institutions while also attacking them. They have to claim to defend our sacred rules while ignoring them.
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/police-crackdown-women-protesters-over-500-arrested-anti-trump-rally-773404
Hundreds of protesters invaded the Hart Senate Office Building to protest Trump's immigration policies. The reaction by Sen. Warren (lead photo in the article) is quite telling. Caption "U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) cheers on demonstrators opposing the immigration policies of the Trump administration, as they are arrested at the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, on June 28, 2018."
All of those protesters who were arrested were released. I figure none of them spent close to two years in solitary, nor 5-7 year prison terms.
How much does the Meijer family contribute to Reason?
Gibbs will win because the 3rd is full of people who vote for the Republican label. Amash lost when he quit the party - nothing else about him changed but the label. Now that the intra-party squabble is over, the general election will see him through.
That's how stupid our party system is.
Amash quit the party after he lost support in his district over his TDS. His successor should have been smart enough to read his district and keep his head down. I'm sure plenty of GOP voters have had their fill of party mavericks.
GOP voters probably wanted someone to represent them.
Damn rubes.
Do they think we still have government by the people or something?
When Amash was R, he took up the R slot. There was no alternative for conservatives, even those who hated his guts.
After he quit the party, he didn’t get any more funding and he didn’t take up the R slot anymore, that’s why he lost. That, and also because he was a horrible candidate.
Except for redistricting... So the GOP primaried out the 'moderate' incumbent and is going to put up a Trump lackey this Nov, a guy who literally dresses like T in all his campaign literature (what AM I going to use for firestarter now that the election is over??) in a new district where Biden would have beat Trump by 9 had the new boundaries been in effect in 2020?
Cite?
9pts Biden over Trump in redistricted MI-3: https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/political-winds-shifting-west-michigan-can-peter-meijer-survive-storm
Gibbs fashion sense: Every damn mailer I've gotten in the last 3 weeks as a resident of Michigan's new 3rd district.
Thanks
"...and is going to put up a Trump lackey..."
One more TDS-addled shitpile accounted for.
Meijer was a pro-gun control RINO. Gibbs, whose resume is pretty gd impressive, is the more libertarian candidate BY FAR who also happens to like Trump. TDS much, Reason?
Are they attacking Gibbs like they are attacking Walker in Georgia? With vile racist comments?
They call themselves "progressives" and "anti-racists", they called Georgia's updated voting laws Jim Crow 2.0.
In reality, they are base human beings, simply filled with venom and racist vitriol to be turned on anyone with whom they disagree.
Here's a smattering of things that MSNC hosts, Washington Post and The Nation writers, and other candidates for office have said about Herschel Walker, who is running for a Senate seat to represent Georgia (against incumbent Raphael Warnock).
Imagine for one second if Fox News or the WSJ had written these statements about Mr. Warnock.
"Walker is doing what he's told, and that is what Republicans like. That's what Republicans want from their Negroes: to do what they're told."
"Herschel Walker's candidacy is a white insult to Black people."
"Walker is what they think of us, and they think we’re big, ignorant, and easily manipulated. They think we’re shady or criminal. They think we’re tools to be used. The Walker campaign exists as a political minstrel show: a splashy rendition of what white Republicans think Black people look and sound like."
"I make a hard distinction between Black conservatives and these tokens" – referring to Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) and Walker – "who are out here right now, shucking and jiving for their white handlers."
"Walker has positioned himself into being a useful fool for those who don't have the best interests of Black people or this democracy at heart."
"[Herschel Walker's] irrelevant to the Black community, and we should treat him as such."
"Herschel Walker, the football star turned Georgia Senate candidate, is an animated caricature of a Black person drawn by white conservatives."
"Most white people in the South vote 'R' like their entire white supremacist project depends on it."
"Georgia Republicans want Walker because he's Black and Warnock is Black, and they think they can defeat Warnock in November if they can shave just a little of the Black vote..."
"Mr. Walker was merely a vessel for the G.O.P. and Mr. Trump's ambitions."
"He's a puppet on a string, and somebody's pulling those strings really good."
Your piece of shit GOPe soy got beat by a better man.
Your life has no value, Boehm, and hopefully someone ends it soon since you don't have the integrity to do it yourself.
A Very Interesting read:
Liberty And Freedom
Indeed. Thanks for posting. Says a lot about what is happening today. I like the definition of Liberty as obligation to the agreed upon rule and Freedom as a power move to centralize rather than really free anyone. Interesting concepts.
Full of non sequiturs.
Forget Covid and Monkey pox, the real pandemic has been and is TDS.
It's foolish for the voters to take this shit more seriously than the legislators do.
The January 6 riot should have been a warning to both parties about the potentially dangerous mixture of rage and conspiratorial thinking that increasingly dominates right-wing politics.
Wait, you're fucking kidding me with this...
Democrats just keep trying to steal that base that the GOP is attacking the founding principles of the country, while they actually attack the founding principles of the country.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) spent $435,000 on an ad claiming that Gibbs was "too conservative" for western Michigan—effectively boosting the election-denying Trump-endorsed candidate.
I was trying to untangle all the contortions of logic in this sentence when I realized the important question is: "Is Boehm suffering from TDS or playing a masterful game of 12D chess against himself and losing?" And that the answer is: "Yes!"
Like seriously, what are they going to do? Run an ad saying "Gibbs is just the right amount of conservative running for western Michigan."?, "Meijer is just the right amount of conservative running for western Michigan."?, "Meijer is too conservative for western Michigan."?
Phrased this way, this article sounds an awful lot like a loser claiming his opposition didn't do enough to help him win.
"Like seriously, what are they going to do? Run an ad saying..."
How about not run any ads saying anything at all (given that they're Democrats and this is the Republican Primary)?
And it seems like a really brain-dead thing to do given that a D candidate is unlikely to win in this district anyway, so Democrats will have spent half a million $$ helping to put another Trumpy candidate into Congress. WTF?
And it seems like a really brain-dead thing to do
Only if the goal of the Democrats is reasoned debate and consensus. But it isn't. They want the utter destruction of all opposition. Sometime after the 1/6 hearings and before the 2024 election, they will actually arrest a few (R) Reps for spreading disinformation about the election process. This will lead to protests, which will be brutally suppressed...
Do I really have to outline all this? Just reference the situation in post-war Eastern Europe if anything is still available when the Winston Smiths who contribute to Wikipedia are done with the redaction. It took 75 years, but we are in an identical situation. If people don't start seeing the parallels, they will succeed.
They already arrested an R governor candidate in Michigan over 1/6. And nobody cared.
They are playing the long game, they know the further the pendulum swings away from them now, the further it will swing toward them the next time.
That is of course where they cede any moral high ground they may have claimed, they are admitting there is no existential threat to democracy and this is all just partisan gamesmanship.
Quit conceding that there is any moral high ground for Democrats to claim. Go read their platform. It consists of consolidating power and forcing compliance. Any resemblance to liberty is purely coincidental.
How about not run any ads saying anything at all (given that they're Democrats and this is the Republican Primary)?
Is there a law preventing them from running an ad saying which opponent they prefer the least? Whether there's a law or not, how does punching yourself in the dick and crying that your opposition doesn't dislike you enough because you sided with them on impeachment not make things worse?
You can be sure that Dems will be fortifying the hell out of the November elections.
And the Reason writers will be telling us it's OK because "private companies" own the ballot software so they can do anything they want with it.
You cannot defeat the democrats until you strip them of their RINO allies. If they help us do it, so much the better.
It's a standard tactic for Democrats to back candidates in Republican primaries that they perceive as being relatively weak and easy to beat.
This tactic has bit them in the ass more than a few times. Media Democrats were pushing Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries because they thought he would be an easy win for Hillary. It didn't work out so well for them.
They're regretting a lot of things these days, or would be if they had good sense...
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
“I've got a pen, and I've got a phone"
The 'Biden Rule'.
The nuclear option in the Senate for confirmations, and the pre-election call to double-down on and invoke the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominations (see comments from Tim Kaine and Harry Reid before they lost the elections that they just *knew* they were going to win).
So-called "prosecutorial discretion", applied to immigration law, setting the stage for the same in labor law, environmental law, etc.
Not bothering to even pretend to listen to Republicans on major legislation (Obamacare).
Being derisive toward "fly-over country".
Maybe ought to have updated that a tad...originally created the list during Trump administration.
Later, he told The Atlantic's Tim Alberta that the Republican Party needed an intervention over its addiction to Trump
Trump provided conservatives with a needed intervention over their addiction to Republicans. Old money bluebloods like Meijer need to figure out the base has moved on without them.
This. Meijer represented everything that was wrong with Republicans. Good riddance. He should join the Democrats: they love wealthy, pompous, self-important authoritarians.
I'm not sure it is a victory for our country
Well then the fuck did you vote to impeach him?
Dumbass tools like him deserve to lose.
"The Democratic Establishment Teamed Up With Trump To Oust Peter Meijer!!!!"
*reads article*
The voters who'd had enough of Meijer's GOPe bullshit ousted him, and the Democratic Establishment thought that they were being tricky but definitely didn't team up with Trump.
I swear Boehm, if this were 20 years ago you'd never have even been hired.
So Boehm's theory is that those "principled" conservatives in Michigan who would have voted for Meijer in November are instead going to vote for the left's Hillary Scholten, thus giving the democrats the seat? Really "principled" conservatives we have there.
I think Boehm's theory is that independents are so gullible and stupid that we can be tricked into thinking that Meijer is a decent compromise candidate and sensible politician, instead of the authoritarian a--hole that he actually is.
I think Boehm suffers from a raging case of TDS and should be hospitalized far from a keyboard to avoid embarrassing himself further.
Trump might be a blowhard.
However, his detractors who look for Democratic media support are the threat to oppose.
His is a blowhard, and probably not a pleasant person to be around. But his policies were better than any POTUS in the last century, and I really don't care who he offended, so long as he delivered increased liberty and a raging economy.
Good times! And have you checked your portfolio for the droolin' Joe results?
21st century Democrat ethics: everything, and they mean everything, is fair game to achieve short and long term political goals. Big money interests, subversive government actions that would make Nixon blush, outright propaganda, and the only token mention of the Constitution is when they think is might be amusing or convenient.
^ this
Again, any resemblance to liberty is purely coincidental.
Democrats support terminating the life of babies nothing is beneath them
Good riddance to that arrogant trust fund baby.
Every single politician who supported Trump’s impeachment and/or the Jan 6 commission should never hold public office again.
Regardless of what you think of Trump, all three represented a gigantic abuse of power by Congress.
Every single politician who supported Trump’s impeachment and/or the Jan 6 commission should never hold public office again.
Along with anyone who would allow a Democrat SCOTUS appointment if it can be prevented.
The impeachments and the Jan 6 commissions are active, gross violations of the rule of law and the Constitution.
Allowing a Democratic SCOTUS appointment may be unwise, but at least it is formally legal and constitutional.
*snip* " and the violence and that sense of foreboding and doom,"
Kind of like how the USA feels right now?
Democrats voted in the primary no doubt. A common tactic they use in states with open primaries.
Will be hilarious if it backfires.
'Teaming up'?
Sounds more like the guy was disliked by all sorts of people; nothing like 'teaming up'.
Eric needs to stuff his TDS up his ass, so his head gets some company.
I can't wait for the lefty tears when Gibbs wins. Delicious.
Your mouth to God's ears
Lawless Maricopa County Updates Election Results by 5,000 Votes — Then Shuts Down — Says They Will Post More Results Tomorrow Night — WTF IS GOING ON?
Another conspiracy theory?
They're apparently still counting...
"Michigan's 3rd district has produced two consecutive freedom-oriented Republican lawmakers. Tuesday's results ensure that there won't be a third."
No honest source ever uses the term "freedom-oriented" when discussing Peter Meijer. He is against freedom, against free speech guarantees and freedom of the press, and he is against the 2nd amendment.
The only freedom he supports if the freedom of the establishment to infringe on any and all other freedoms.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should “disqualify” any candidate giving aid & comfort to the insurrectionists.
The 14th Amendment’s “Disqualification Clause” clearly disqualifies any candidate, that has previously taken the constitutional Oath of Office, from ever serving in government again.
It may be possible for any candidate, like Meier, could cite “14th Amendment injury” and hire a constitutional-attorney (ie: ACLU attorney or Institute for Justice attorney) to immediately disqualify any candidate supporting insurrection or rebellion.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does NOT say Congress has sole authority to invoke the Disqualification Clause. It only gives Congress exclusive authority to forgive (or not) anyone already disqualified.
Meijer is arguably running against illegal candidates, not meeting the qualification as a candidate. This could possibly be used to prevent Trump from running also.
You're not going to live long if you want to take that route.
Meijer is an old school Republican rich boy who doesnt conform to the new populist conservative movement in the new Republican Party. The new Republican Party is blue collar, pro God, family and country not corporate lap dogs who sneer at the working class.
Because you have a common enemy does not meant you are working together.