[Discussion] 2022 Midterm Election Catch-All

Anything related to the midterms.

It would be nice to have 51 senators. I am just annoyed at the GOP plan to handle climate change which is just tamer words for doing nothing. They want to dress up doing nothing.

Hockosi wrote:

Good when the play works. Scary when it goes wrong.

This is the reason the Mastriano play in PA got so strongly criticized early on. It was looking bad for a while there, and Mastriano is an absolute nut.

Dude did a lot more than misrepresent his military service...and he still got more than 43% of the vote because Republicans don't give a f*ck about anything but the (R) behind people's name.

AP wrote:

...

Throughout his campaign Majewski has offered his Air Force service as a valuable credential. The tagline “veteran for Congress” appears on campaign merchandise. He ran a Facebook ad promoting himself as “combat veteran.” And in a campaign video released this year, Majewski marauds through a vacant factory with a rifle while pledging to restore an America that is “independent and strong like the country I fought for.”

More recently, the House Republican campaign committee released a biography that describes Majewski as a veteran whose “squadron was one of the first on the ground in Afghanistan after 9/11.” A campaign ad posted online Tuesday by Majewski supporters flashed the words “Afghanistan War Veteran” across the screen alongside a picture of a younger Majewski in his dress uniform.

A biography posted on his campaign website does not mention Afghanistan, but in an August 2021 tweet criticizing the U.S. withdrawal from the country, Majewski said he would “gladly suit up and go back to Afghanistan.”

He’s been far less forthcoming when asked about the specifics of his service.

“I don’t like talking about my military experience,” he said in a 2021 interview on the One American Podcast after volunteering that he served one tour of duty in Afghanistan. “It was a tough time in life. You know, the military wasn’t easy.”

A review of his service records, which the AP obtained from the National Archives through a public records request, as well as an accounting provided by the Air Force, offers a possible explanation for his hesitancy.

Rather than deploying to Afghanistan, as he has claimed, the records state that Majewski was based at Kadena Air Base in Japan for much of his active-duty service. He later deployed for six months to Qatar in May 2002, where he helped load and unload planes while serving as a “passenger operations specialist,” the records show.

While based in Qatar, Majewski would land at other air bases to transfer military passengers, medics, supplies, his campaign said. The campaign did not answer a direct question about whether he was ever in Afghanistan.

...

Majewski’s campaign said that he calls himself a combat veteran because the area he deployed to — Qatar — is considered a combat zone.

Majewski also lacks many of the medals that are typically awarded to those who served in Afghanistan.

Though he once said that he went more than 40 days without a shower during his time in the landlocked country, he does not have an Afghanistan campaign medal, which was issued to those who served “30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days” in the country.

He also did not receive a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, which was issued to service members before the creation of the Afghanistan campaign medal if they deployed overseas in “direct service to the War on Terror.”

Matthew Borie, an Air Force veteran who worked in intelligence and reviewed Majewski’s records at AP’s request, said it’s “odd” that Majewski lacks many of the “medals you would expect to see for someone who deployed to Afghanistan.”

There’s also the matter of Majewski’s final rank and reenlistment code when he left active duty after four years of service.

Most leave the service after four years having received several promotions that are generally awarded for time served. Majewski exited at a rank that was one notch above where he started. His enlistment code also indicated that he could not sign up with the Air Force again.

Majewski’s campaign said he received what’s called a nonjudicial punishment in 2001 after getting into a “brawl” in his dormitory, which resulted in a demotion. Nonjudicial punishments are designed to hold service members accountable for bad behavior that does not rise to the level of a court-martial.

Majewski’s resume exaggeration isn’t limited to his military service, reverberating throughout his professional life, as well as a nascent political career that took shape in an online world of conspiracy theories.

Since gaining traction in his campaign for Congress, Majewski has denied that he is a follower of the QAnon conspiracy theory while playing down his participation in the Capitol riot.

The baseless and apocalyptic QAnon belief is based on cryptic online postings by the anonymous “Q,” who is purportedly a government insider. It posits that Trump is fighting entrenched enemies in the government and also involves satanism and child sex trafficking.

“Let me be clear, I denounce QAnon. I do not support Q, and I do not subscribe to their conspiracy theories,” Majewski said in his statement to the AP.

But in the past Majewski repeatedly posted QAnon references and memes to social media, wore a QAnon shirt during a TV interview and has described Zak Paine, a QAnon influencer and online personality who goes by the nom de guerre Redpill78, as a “good friend.”

During a February 2021 appearance on a YouTube stream, Majewski stated, “I believe in everything that’s been put out from Q,” while characterizing the false posts as “military-level intelligence, in my opinion.” He also posted, to the right-wing social media platform Parler, a photo of the “Trump 2020” mural he painted on his lawn that was modified to change the zeros into “Q’s,” as first reported by CNN.

Then there’s Majewski’s participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Majewski has said that he raised about $25,000 to help dozens of people attend the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. He also traveled to the event with his friend Paine, the QAnon influencer, and the two later appeared in social media postings near the Capitol.

Majewski acknowledged he was outside the Capitol, but denies entering the building. Still, he lamented the decision on a QAnon livestream a week after the attack, stating that he was “pissed off at myself” for not going into the building.

“It was a struggle, because I really wanted to go in,” Majewski said on the livestream, which was first unearthed by the liberal group Media Matters.

Majewski has not been charged in connection with the attack. But he has falsely stated that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and said that the insurrection “felt like a setup” by police who were targeting Trump supporters.

In his statement, Majewski said, “I deeply regret being at the Capitol that day” and “did not break the law,” while calling for those who did to be “punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

The mischaracterizations extend to his professional career, in which he has repeatedly described himself as an “executive in the nuclear power industry,” including in a campaign ad last spring.

But a review of his now-deleted resume on the website LinkedIn and a survey of his former employers do not support the claim.

He most recently worked for Holtec International, a Florida-based energy conglomerate that specializes in handling spent nuclear fuel. But he is not listed among the executives and members of the corporate leadership teams in current or archived versions of the company’s website.

A spokesman confirmed Majewski was a former Holtec employee, but declined to offer details on his position or role, which Majewski’s LinkedIn page described as “senior director, client relations.”

Majewski’s campaign declined to address his claim of being an executive, but said he participated in weekly conference calls with executives.

Majewski also described himself on LinkedIn as “project manager - senior consultant” for First Energy, an Ohio based power company, a position that he stated he held since shortly after leaving the military. The company, Majewski explained in a biography posted to his website, quickly recognized him for his “intellect and leadership capabilities”

Yet records from his 2009 bankruptcy raise questions about his seniority. They show he was an “outage manager” who earned about $51,000 a year. In the bankruptcy, Majewski and his wife gave up their home, two cars and a Jet Ski to settle the case, court records show.

Still, in a nationalized political environment, some Republicans suggest none of this will matter to voters.

LOL, dude lied about literally everything and yep, all that matters is the (R) next to his name.

Anyway, Dem Gov. in Oregon (sad Phil Knight), Repub Gov. in Nevada (I know I'm a woke libtard, but the "split the ticket" voters will always baffle me, assuming Dems win the Nevada senate seat).

Prederick wrote:

LOL, dude lied about literally everything and yep, all that matters is the (R) next to his name.

Anyway, Dem Gov. in Oregon (sad Phil Knight), Repub Gov. in Nevada (I know I'm a woke libtard, but the "split the ticket" voters will always baffle me, assuming Dems win the Nevada senate seat).

Be thankful for split ticket. Otherwise, we would have Sent Walker right now.
Candidates matter.

So riddle me this. 8% more white women voted GOP in 2022 than 2018. Despite all these white women yelling loudly that the GOP messed up big time when they did everything they did.

I’m telling you it’s all about what they say vs what they actually do once they have the anonymity of voting. White folks value one thing and one thing only….the preservation of white supremacy.

TheGameguru wrote:

So riddle me this. 8% more white women voted GOP in 2022 than 2018. Despite all these white women yelling loudly that the GOP messed up big time when they did everything they did.

I’m telling you it’s all about what they say vs what they actually do once they have the anonymity of voting. White folks value one thing and one thing only….the preservation of white supremacy.

I'd be curious to see the age and geography of that increase. My guess would be older white women in southern suburban areas who spend a lot on platinum blond, but that almost seems too obvious.

According to https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022... there was a 7% increase in the number of GOP voters amongst black women, and a 14% increase amongst Latina women.

I didn’t find a geographical break down yet, or anyone attempting to correlate who complained about the GOP before hand but voted for them anyway.

8% more white women translates to a LOT more actual people than a 16% increase in POC women.

I've said it before: white people, especially white men, are the problem.

I think we still have a huge problem in the US with voters buying in to some candidate's story without considering what they will do once in power.

Leave it to Republicans to warp and corrupt every positive advancement in power representation that minorities have gained over the decades. Case in point, Hershel Walker and dare I say the glaring one: Clarence Thomas.

But this struck me as catastrophic going forward when I saw a special on Hispanic voting on MSNBC. There were two scary points: that working class Hispanic men were buying in to the same working class white Trump voter bullsh*t. The other was a VA house race that was very uncomfortable to watch.

It was Spanberger's VA district that had been redrawn to be more competitive. She an incumbent Dem white woman was running against Vega, a Rep Latina from El Salvador. Now Vega had an impressive story and background: brother was killed by MS-13 at a young age, military, she was a cop and came across as very genuine. But her stances were straight up blue lives matter police state Kool-Aid, immigrants are criminals, build the wall bullsh*t.

Yet they interviewed a couple of her supporters and the younger daughter first time voting supports Vega because of her humble roots and that she also came from El Salvador. It was the same messaging when Kamala Harris was elected "for the first time, someone in the White House looks like me" empowering event but completely perverted to empower fascists.

The good news is Spanberger won with over 50% of the vote. (seems like that is the best we can hope for these days) But how many more of these sh*t candidates with attractive stories and background are we going to have to fend off for the next 10 years? I mean, if social media is anything to go by, that is all we will ever get going forward...

TheGameguru wrote:

I’m telling you it’s all about what they say vs what they actually do once they have the anonymity of voting. White folks value one thing and one thing only….the preservation of white supremacy.

#NotAllWhitePeople

#ButPrettyDamnClose

JLS wrote:

8% more white women translates to a LOT more actual people than a 16% increase in POC women.

Sure, but if you want to understand WHY the 8% increase exists, I don't think you can hand-wave away similar increases across the board. Something clearly drew women in general increasingly to the GOP vote this time.

TheGameguru wrote:

So riddle me this. 8% more white women voted GOP in 2022 than 2018. Despite all these white women yelling loudly that the GOP messed up big time when they did everything they did.

Is that "%2022WhiteWomenVotes = (2018WhiteWomenDemVote% - 8) + (2018WhiteWomenGOPVote% + 8)", or is that "counting vote totals, 2022WhiteWomenGOPVotes = 2018WhiteWomenGOPVotes * 1.08"? The former seems highly problematic; the latter depends on the total number of votes. If 20% more white women voted and the GOP count only grew by 8%, that's trending in the right direction.

I'm sorry, standard BBCode is insufficient for your mathematical expressiveness. Can we get a Mathematica plugin for this forum?

TheGameguru wrote:

So riddle me this. 8% more white women voted GOP in 2022 than 2018. Despite all these white women yelling loudly that the GOP messed up big time when they did everything they did.

PoC got some table scraps they didn't "deserve" at the expense of white people.

That's all.

My guess is that like many people they have not felt the pain yet and have not learned yet. They will happily ignore it all until it is their hand on the stove. "I didn't think this could hurt me" will then be all the op-ed articles.

I forget where I heard this originally, but it seems apt here...

You have a bunch of friends over for dinner. You vote on what to have. Some of your friends want pizza. Some of your friends want to kill and eat you. Even if pizza wins, you still have a serious problem.
UpToIsomorphism wrote:

I forget where I heard this originally, but it seems apt here...

You have a bunch of friends over for dinner. You vote on what to have. Some of your friends want pizza. Some of your friends want to kill and eat you. Even if pizza wins, you still have a serious problem.

It’s a famous Ben Franklin quote, though his version involved lambs and wolves. There’s also a… more graphic… version from the Transmetropolitan comic books that frequently gets reposted around election time.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I’m telling you it’s all about what they say vs what they actually do once they have the anonymity of voting. White folks value one thing and one thing only….the preservation of white supremacy.

#NotAllWhitePeople

#ButPrettyDamnClose

If you are a black person in America and the odds are any white person you meet is about 70-80% likely to have voted for the Party that actively demonizes you at every opportunity and considers you less of an American wouldn’t the prudent option be just assume this person doesn’t have my best interest at heart?

As for the rise in poc voting for the GOP one has to realize how 400+ years of brainwashing and manipulation can have on a persons self identity and worth. Just look at all the black Christians and realize how exactly they got there.

*Legion* wrote:
JLS wrote:

8% more white women translates to a LOT more actual people than a 16% increase in POC women.

Sure, but if you want to understand WHY the 8% increase exists, I don't think you can hand-wave away similar increases across the board. Something clearly drew women in general increasingly to the GOP vote this time.

I'd be interested to see the makeup of those 8% by age, where they live, their marital status, and how their husbands voted if they're married. Or just the demographics between married partners in general. (I imagine those would be difficult numbers to verify, I just wish we could).

I love my boomer parents, however my (filipino/latina) mom votes whatever my dad votes. They're staunch democrats who will often vote for younger or female candidates that align with thier views, however they are angling more conservative as they get into their 70's that I and my queer siblings try to work and walk back while they continue to carry on in their voting years. However whatever my (very smart, very sharp, but privileged and white) dad decides, they both tend to end up voting. I imagine in more conservative or republican households you'd see similar. Especially if those are households that still maintain a head of the household/father knows best kind of mindset.

(disclaimer: my mother is a strong and stable woman, she just grew up in a different country during a different era. The matriarchy runs strong in this one, but the 'head of the household' mindset still runs deep there too).

As a child of full immersion and indoctrination of an immigrant parent, I am not the least bit surprised there are hard R voters amongst non-white folks in the US that are of typical voting age. The boomers and gen x'ers, and even many millenials and younger (though to a dramatically lesser degree) often bought into the american exceptionalism and elitism and privlege that the republican party peddles. Humans are weirdly persistent about things they don't have, but still want.

As we get older, we as a species often get more afraid of a world that no longer caters to us, centers us, or considers us. It's scary, it's terrifying, becoming frail. And one thing conservatives, and the republican party in general, wheel and deal in really well is fear-based marketing. If you are baffled by what could make people vote R, I think it's effective fear-based marketing to older demographics that don't realize "the news" as they knew it no longer exists, and still consume content from the same "news sources" that now operate from a fear-based click/view-driven economy. The republican party does fear really well.

Also might not hurt to consider that if some places are going to be suppressing or intimidating D voters, and that group may have a higher number of women/non white folks...then you're going to see a higher percentage of R votes among those demographics that aren't being suppressed? That's why I don't like loose percentages as facts, you may not be seeing the other parts of the percentile and what may be impacting those results.

Percentiles often annoy me as they're often used to make numbers sound better or worse than what they actually are to sell a point. It's oversimplification in order to be more appealing to whatever point you're trying to make. They're tools to appeal to emotion while pretending to appeal to science or whatever.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I’m telling you it’s all about what they say vs what they actually do once they have the anonymity of voting. White folks value one thing and one thing only….the preservation of white supremacy.

#NotAllWhitePeople

#ButPrettyDamnClose

Seriously. Can we keep the sweeping racist generalizations out of here? Saying ALL white people care about something is just wrong

Those numbers, from the link, seemed a bit odd honestly. Unless I was misreading it. It basically said every single demographic voted conservative more. Young, old, white, minority etc. Which is a bit odd considering the outcome. Of course where they voted matters I suppose.

LeapingGnome wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I’m telling you it’s all about what they say vs what they actually do once they have the anonymity of voting. White folks value one thing and one thing only….the preservation of white supremacy.

#NotAllWhitePeople

#ButPrettyDamnClose

Seriously. Can we keep the sweeping racist generalizations out of here? Saying ALL white people care about something is just wrong

From the perspective of a black American is there a difference?

LeapingGnome wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

White folks value one thing and one thing only….the preservation of white supremacy.

Seriously. Can we keep the sweeping racist generalizations out of here? Saying ALL white people care about something is just wrong

"White folks" != "ALL white people"

Guru is, at least in my reading, speaking of a demographic, not making an "every single individual with white skin" proclamation.

As was often said in the time of #NotAllMen: "if it doesn't sound like you, then we're not talking about you".

Democrats hold the Senate. Georgia will just be icing on the top.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Democrats hold the Senate. Georgia will just be icing on the top.

Icing that will make confirming judges faster! Walker's biggest argument to get R voters to turn out in the runoffs also just went up in smoke.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Democrats hold the Senate. Georgia will just be icing on the top.

Now is this mean they actually hold the Senate or that they have 48 senators and two assholes with the VP breaking the tie?

Nevin73 wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

Democrats hold the Senate. Georgia will just be icing on the top.

Now is this mean they actually hold the Senate or that they have 48 senators and two assholes with the VP breaking the tie?

They'll have 49 and two assholes. If the Dems end up keeping the house, then the good news is that Manchin and Sinema are assholes in different ways. That was a big problem at 50-50 because their no goes were mutually exclusive. Now you just need one or the other.

If they don't keep the house, then 51 means Dems get to be majorities on the committees. No discharge petitions needed so you can get judges and nominees through faster. Neither of them has been a problem when it comes to judges at least.

Edit: Oh, and having majorities on the committees means they can start using the subpoena powers.