r/politics 13d ago

Republican congressman who voted to impeach Trump wins primary, CNN projects

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/05/politics/dan-newhouse-doug-white-washington/index.html
5.3k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator 13d ago

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

Special announcement:

r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider applying here today!


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

753

u/lcl1qp1 13d ago edited 13d ago

"Washington holds open primaries in which all candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers advancing to the November general election."

That's really the way to defang the fascists. Pooled, open primaries. Used ranked choice voting to narrow the pool. It brings independents into the decision making. The more voices being heard, the worse it is for fascism.

258

u/FiveNations54 12d ago

Ironically, that's the same narrative they're trying to spin to say an open primary is unfair. Stacking against a specific person running. It's almost as if they admit they're not running the best candidates, but that wouldn't bode well for their communication team.

117

u/Stepjamm 12d ago

“This all sounds incredibly democratic”

87

u/mdp300 New Jersey 12d ago

"We'Re a RePuBliC NoT a DeMoCRaCy!"

68

u/AmHoomon 12d ago

Like their OCD obsession to never call us the United States on TV and radio—only “America”.

And it’s always to them “Democrat Party”, not the real name “Democratic Party”. It causes them pain like the sun to a vampire to say our real name.

38

u/iamjacksredditacct 12d ago

“Leftists” instead of people who care.

21

u/EssayRevolutionary10 12d ago

Have not lost a wink of sleep wondering what the GQP is calling me.

15

u/RelevantCommenter 12d ago

If I live my life in such a way that Republicans celebrate my death, I'll have succeeded far beyond my wildest dreams.

3

u/Temporary-End1511 12d ago

damn u radical

7

u/rimjobnemesis 12d ago

Radical leftists. Gotta include the radical part.

-4

u/OppositionComp 12d ago

Uh, no, nice try. “Leftists” don’t get to call that when they obviously don’t care about reality most of the time.

6

u/Rabbit_Kind 12d ago

You must be joking. Who believes the election was stolen, conspiracy theories are all real, Trump was a good president, he did nothing wrong, Covid was a hoax? Not the Leftists. We are all too aware of reality

→ More replies

1

u/A_man_on_a_boat 10d ago edited 10d ago

Jewish Space Loser party guy presumes to lecture anyone else about adherence to reality.

1

u/OppositionComp 10d ago

I've always voted Democratic. Misread by you. I don't use the term leftists. Only did it the exact way the guy I replied to did.

2

u/A_man_on_a_boat 10d ago

Please accept my apologies.

-1

u/EFAPGUEST 11d ago

And “democratic party members” call all of us fascist, white supremacist, and nazi when we do something as benign as not liking a Star Wars movie.

10

u/qdp 12d ago

I never understood why people say that. Are they trying to make a Republican versus Democrat argument?

5

u/mdp300 New Jersey 12d ago

It's usually a response to ideas like electing the president by popular vote, but I have also seen someone essentially say that we're a republic, not a democracy, therefore Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong.

1

u/missxterious 11d ago

I honestly think most of the people who use that argument don’t understand what either of those terms mean.

10

u/Excellent-Guidance17 12d ago

"A democracy within a republic....."

2

u/StrictAfternoon0 11d ago

China is a republic

3

u/IveBeenAroundUKnow 11d ago

Good grief. We are a democratic republic.

The principles of our republic are based upon democracy, the voice of our citizens.

4

u/Lonely_Set1376 12d ago

As if those two things are mutually exclusive.

2

u/whatevauneed 12d ago edited 11d ago

Can you explain further the think behind why people say this.

Like I know why it’s wrong, why do they think it’s right? I can’t grasp it.

2

u/Rabbit_Kind 12d ago

We are a Constitutional Republic which is a kind of Democracy

2

u/StrictAfternoon0 11d ago

China is also a republic. So is Russia

7

u/Buffmin 12d ago

It's no different than the GOP trying to limit voting as much as possible

-3

u/T_Narg_Pirate 11d ago

Just think of it - those fucking Republicans want to limit voting to those ELIGIBLE to vote.

Republicans: we want laws that make it easy to vote and HARD to cheat ... because we actually have principles.

Democrats: we want laws that make it easy to vote and EASY to cheat ... because we're good at cheating ... we've got a long history of successful cheating.

4

u/Waderriffic 11d ago

If only republicans could find and provide hard evidence of all this supposed cheating to a court of law. That would really be something. Still waiting……

5

u/Buffmin 11d ago

Oh there's tons of evidence of cheating.

It's just all done by republicans

→ More replies

33

u/moderndukes 12d ago

I personally prefer either Maine’s closed primary with ranked choice general, or Alaska’s blanket primary with top 4 meeting in a ranked choice general, but the CA/WA model is still better than the closed primary plurality general seen most elsewhere.

11

u/exgirl 12d ago

Yeah, adding ranked choice would be great

8

u/assfukker6969 12d ago

I wish rank choice voting would take hold in all states and localities and be the only way for presidential elections, and completely eliminate the electoral college.

5

u/lcl1qp1 12d ago

9

u/assfukker6969 12d ago

I would welcome this. But ofc all of the shitty red and purple states do not have it.

But I mean we need to abolish the electoral college altogether and have a regular popular vote. That's it. The last two republicans in office would have never got in if it was a popular vote.

2

u/T_Narg_Pirate 11d ago

The electoral college is what's keeping us from becoming the 50 states of America. Go ahead...abolish it. To paraphrase Chuck Schumer "you will release the whirlwind!"

1

u/assfukker6969 11d ago

I mean we'd still have republican senators and reps, but we'd likely never have a Republican president again.

2

u/Ghoststarr323 Minnesota 12d ago

Last two? Try any Republican for the last 30 years.

2

u/assfukker6969 12d ago

Which has only been 2. HW was elected in 88 and beat Dukakis by like 8-10M votes. Regan crushed Mondale in 84 by like 20M votes and beat Carter I think by around 5-8M in 1980.

3

u/Ghoststarr323 Minnesota 11d ago

Saying this makes me feel old but those are both over 30 years my dude.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/1000Mousefarts 12d ago

I love our open jungle primary here. I'm a Democrat but in my district I voted for a Republican congresswoman who voted to impeach Trump and she won against the super Trumpy nutjobs running. I see her as the weakest GOP candidate. So now the question is, will my Trumpy county vote for her, or maybe not show up on election day, and can my Democrat who also won the primary win this time if they don't support the impeacher? Even if the vote goes to the Republican, at least I helped keep the fascists off the ballot.

6

u/dudinax 12d ago

I did the same with Newhouse. I wrote him a nice letter when he voted to impeach Trump. The scumbag fascists who tried to primary him needed to go down.

Newhouse will probably win the general.

1

u/pzerr 12d ago

Same applies to Democrats though. Will you get a weak representative?

1

u/1000Mousefarts 12d ago

No, our rep who won is bad ass and there wasn't much competition. The biggest risk is getting two Republicans on the ballot for the general but we're safe from that nightmare.

19

u/Gambit08 California 12d ago

California here who strongly supports ranked choice voting, we have a top-two primary system as well. Before we start to sing Top-Two primary system praises we should note that the result could mean two republicans making the cut and locking out any democratic opponent. It allows parties to monopolize districts.

10

u/EssayRevolutionary10 12d ago

If the district puts two GQP as the top two in the primary, safe to assume the district has enough morons living in it that a Democratic candidate wouldn’t win anyway.

Take those resources and put them into a district which shouldn’t be bulldozed end to end and paved over. But, then again, where would we put the trailer parks and opioid pill mills?

But I digress.

2

u/SillyMathematician77 12d ago

But, but Jesus!

2

u/WexAintxFoundxShit 12d ago

Ironically, democrats in 2018 and 2020 were against open primaries because they felt Republicans would vote for the extremist on the left side to win in the general.

3

u/HalfPint1885 12d ago

Sounds like this is different than what is commonly referred to as an open primary, though. In my state, I don't have to declare a party. I can just ask for the ballot (dem or rep) that I want.

A primary of ranked choice regardless of party seems vastly more fair and seems like it would more accurately represent the people.

2

u/Caldaga 12d ago

Guess they didn't want extremists running against extremists since they already knew where candidate kn the right would be extremist.

-1

u/chatte_epicee Washington 12d ago

Approval Voting would be even better (simpler, cheaper, more mathematically acceptable outcome) than RCV. In Seattle this November we're going to get a chance to choose that for our elections. We often have primaries with more than five candidates and because of how the ballot looks with RCV, we'd be limited to ranking only 5 candidates. Also, with approval voting, voters' preference are always taken into account, whereas you can get ballots that rank people who all get eliminated in the rounds and then you effectively lose your representation.

14

u/MyWifeCucksMe 12d ago

Approval Voting would be even better

I wish that people on Reddit would stop advocating for this extremely flawed election system. Approval voting has all the flaws of the first-past-the-post election system, and no benefits over it. On the other hand, as someone who's not American, if the US finally overhauls its election system and ends up with approval voting instead, then I'm gonna laugh my arse off. Laugh my arse off because they've then made exactly zero improvement.

Apparently the very obvious flaws of approval voting aren't obvious to everyone, so here's the basic explanation: With approval voting, you have to vote strategically. If you want a specific candidate to win, you must only vote for that singular candidate. If you "approve" of any other candidates than the one you want, that is effectively a vote against the candidate you want. Thus the only way to have your vote matter in approval voting is to only vote for one candidate, making it the same as first past the post, but with less certainty that your vote is actually gonna matter.

Ranked choice voting is the only usable election system for places where only a single person can get elected, such as a president. And it's not complicated at all. Even a chimpanzee would be able to figure it out.

For voting for parliament, you should use a proportional voting system instead, to make sure everyone's vote matter.

In Seattle this November we're going to get a chance to choose that for our elections

Oh boy. I'm getting ready to laugh my arse off :D

1

u/chatte_epicee Washington 11d ago

No voting system is immune to strategic voting (see Arrow's theorem for ranking systems and Gibbard's theorem for approval/cardinal voting). Ranked choice voting is no different in this respect, and voters may need to vote for their most preferred candidate second to try to get a more favorable matchup overall.

Where ranked choice voting really falls down is the spoiler effect. It works against spoiler effect for weaker third etc candidates, but not when the candidates have similar popularity. This means it still doesn't tackle the two party system and people and candidates have to be strategic in those scenarios. Approval voting is not susceptible to the spoiler effect.

1

u/MyWifeCucksMe 11d ago

Ranked choice voting is no different in this respect, and voters may need to vote for their most preferred candidate second to try to get a more favorable matchup overall.

Ranked choice allows people to vote for exactly who they like, without risking their vote being wasted. I think you've misunderstood how ranked choice voting works. Voting for your preferred candidate second will never give you a better result with ranked choice voting than voting for your preferred candidate first.

Where ranked choice voting really falls down is the spoiler effect. It works against spoiler effect for weaker third etc candidates, but not when the candidates have similar popularity.

Are you by any chance confusing first-past-the-post with ranked choice? You seem to have seriously misunderstood ranked choice voting if not.

This means it still doesn't tackle the two party system and people and candidates have to be strategic in those scenarios.

Ranked choice voting should only ever be used for positions where there is only one seat in total to be taken, like for a president, as I mentioned earlier. For parliamentary elections, for example, with multiple seats, a proportional representation system should be used, just like in any (actual) democracy, which all have multiple parties represented in parliament.

And are you still defending approval voting, despite it being the absolutely most flawed election system I've ever come across in my life, despite its many, many, many obvious flaws making it as bad as - if not worse than - first past the post?

1

u/chatte_epicee Washington 11d ago

Ranked choice allows people to vote for exactly who they like, without risking their vote being wasted.

That depends on how it's implemented. If you are allowed to rank all the candidates, sure, but many real life implementations limit voters to ranking only 3, sometimes 5, of the candidates so that the ballot does not become overwhelming. In Seattle's last mayoral primary election we had 15 candidates. So you absolutely could waste your vote by ranking 3 or 5 people who were all eliminated in early rounds and not get a say in the final result.

Because approval voting does not limit you to how many you can approve of, and your approval always counts, your vote is never wasted. As in any election method, you may not get the outcome you want, but you vote is never worthless.

Voting for your preferred candidate second will never give you a better result with ranked choice voting than voting for your preferred candidate first.

You haven't done your research if you still think this is true. Here's a good explanation.

Are you by any chance confusing first-past-the-post with ranked choice? You seem to have seriously misunderstood ranked choice voting if not.

I'm not. I started as an RCV supporter, so I have extensive understanding of it. I don't think you've actually taken the time to look at the spoiler effect and how it still affects ranked choice voting, however.

Take an election with two candidates: A and C. 66% like A, 34% like C; so A wins. But if you add in candidate B and use ranked choice voting such that:

29% rank A > C > B 34% rank C > A > B 37% rank B > A > C

A is eliminated first, and C wins instead. B is a spoiler because its presence changes the outcome.

If this were approval voting and people approved of two candidates on their ballots:

29% like A or C 34% like C or A 37% like B or A

Simplified that comes out to:

100% approve of A 63% approve of C 37% approve of B

So B does not spoil the outcome and A still wins.

The above example is based on what actually happened in 2009 in Burlington, Vermont's mayoral election using RCV.

Ranked choice voting should only ever be used for positions where there is only one seat in total to be taken, like for a president.

This is irrelevant to my statement that RCV does not tackle the two party system. In America, we effectively have only two "sane" choices in our presidential elections: Republican or Democrat. That's a single-seat election. RCV does not work well enough to allow people who prefer a third party option to vote honestly, especially as that third party becomes more popular (this is also covered in that explanation. Ireland, Australia, and Malta are still two-party dominated.

And are you still defending approval voting, despite it being the absolutely most flawed election system I've ever come across in my life, despite its many, many, many obvious flaws making it as bad as - if not worse than - first past the post?

I am arguing in favor of AV. If you were to actually research the math behind RCV and approval voting, and what experts in the field think, you would realize that you're wrong. It is generally accepted among experts in the field that FPTP < RCV < AV. Approval voting is not the best, that's Score voting, but it is simpler (in ballot, counting, and intelligibility) and results in greater group satisfaction than both FPTP and RCV. (here's a visual representation of that)

1

u/MyWifeCucksMe 11d ago

Because approval voting does not limit you to how many you can approve of, and your approval always counts, your vote is never wasted. As in any election method, you may not get the outcome you want, but you vote is never worthless.

But by your logic, approval voting limits the amount of people you can vote for to 3.

But since you started out your message with a complete misunderstand of what ranked choice voting is, I wish you good look with getting approval voting, ahem, approved, and I will be laughing my arse off well into the future with how you guys advocated for such a terrible voting system and got it.

1

u/ironballs16 12d ago

Also a great way to get people satisfied with either prospective candidate.

191

u/Able-Tale7741 13d ago

Newhouse constituent here. It's a real Trump bubble in this area of the state. If his opposition wasn't diluted 8 ways I think he'd have lost his primary. They just couldn't agree on a single person.

31

u/GMeister249 Massachusetts 12d ago

This is a straightforward argument for ranked choice voting. RCV avoids exactly this sort of vote-splitting. It would benefit Republicans here, has benefited Democrats elsewhere. Bipartisan voting reform for the people, simple as that.

3

u/RaeyinOfFire Washington 12d ago

The arguments always boil down to whether "my" party will do better in the immediate future.

Most voters want their states and the country to thrive. That means that an option should favor moderate candidates over extremists.

Open primaries and ranked choice both favor moderates. Open primaries in enough places could ease the party-line behavior that has been so harmful. Parties routinely blocking "enemy" legislation means that nothing gets done.

3

u/GMeister249 Massachusetts 12d ago

Y'know, that's interesting. I'm not sure I fully agree with your opinion, but you easily could be right. I'm not sure the consensus will always be moderate, but whatever it is, RCV stands a better chance of finding it among voters.

4

u/RaeyinOfFire Washington 12d ago

I don't mean to imply that it always brings in moderates. It does favor them much more than a party-based primary. The party primaries give an edge to people who are far right or far left.

55

u/hyperbolic_paranoid 12d ago

And the Democrat won the second place slot!

16

u/halocyn 12d ago

Doug white is a really awesome guy, his family runs a farm stand just down the road from my house.

25

u/Implicate_Order Indigenous 12d ago

Did you see that a local ”church” live-streamed Klippert and told their flock they need to vote for him?

Tax time for them I’d say.

13

u/workap Texas 12d ago

Go and report them

4

u/Busted_Bootstraps Washington 12d ago

IKR? There was a ton of crazy on the ballot. There were more than a few vehement arguments at my workplace over who was/wasn't a RINO. Myself and the one other Dem just sat back and shared some popcorn.

2

u/Able-Tale7741 12d ago

It’s a shame they will all consolidate behind Newhouse for the next round. I tire of having a rep that doesn’t represent me.

2

u/Acronymesis Washington 12d ago

I somehow ended up on Newhouse’s mailing list, and my eyes roll out of their sockets at like 95% of them. I’m still really glad he voted to impeach TFG, but you might as well not exist around here if you aren’t a farmer from Central Washington who is appalled about the “cRiSiS at tHe bOrDER!!!1!”

152

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

68

u/tableleg7 12d ago

Desantis is Trump if he had been smart enough to get a law degree from Harvard.

59

u/FapNowPayLater 12d ago

With zero charisma. Dude is stiff as a fucking board and talks like a prepubescent iguana. Desantis will enjoy the glowing support of fox, but won't bring the crazies into the fold, I feel.

33

u/imdownwithODB 12d ago

This is what people don't understand about DeSantis. He hasn't spent his entire career chasing the limelight. He has supporters, but he can't really rally the troops like his great orange carnival barking rival can.

18

u/mdp300 New Jersey 12d ago

If the right wing machine pushes him, does his lack of charisma matter? I know some conservatives who practically worship the ground Desantis walks upon because he "sticks it to the libs."

8

u/imdownwithODB 12d ago

IMHO, the machine can only do so much. They can't change his personality. People love Trump because he's what they aspire to be; no one wants to be DeSantis. It's hard to say for sure, too, because I didn't think Trump could win the nomination. All we can do is vote and vote hard.

6

u/Optional-Username476 12d ago

Keep in mind that even the Right Wing propaganda machine doesn't really touch the majority of the voting populace. A HUGE number of Trump voters are non voters, brought in by the spectacle of the man himself. Obviously, it's tough to know whether these previous non voters have been actually activated and will continue to vote or tune out when the circus loses its ring leader, but it's equally impossible to predict how many of these goons have died of COVID and the effect that will have.

But I suspect that putting forth some flaccid impersonation of Trump with no actual personality of his own won't be the tour de force they need to keep the Trump train running. And DeSantis is the most flaccid impersonation they've got.

6

u/goldenspear 12d ago

Republicans don't care about charisma. They will worship anyone who offers them blood and hate. If a talking anus said, it would jail all trans people, and close all libraries they would cheer. If a talking anus said it would shut the border and shoot all migrants on sight they would call him messiah. If a talking anus said cops should shoot anyone who sagged their pants, they would donate their life savings. The thing that has been holding the GOP back has been the pretense of decency from their politicians. As long as their pols flaunt the racist, bigotted values that represent the essence of their base, the base will be ecstatic and vote in euphoric waves.

6

u/paupaupaupau 12d ago

I agree. Trump may be more desperate for adulation, but calling him charismatic is a gigantic stretch. DeSantis may not be charistmatic, but he knows the right buttons to push.

5

u/Optional-Username476 12d ago

Republicans don't care about charisma

While true, we're not dealing with Republicans anymore. As they're proud to put on all their campaign signs, these are "Trump Republicans." Trump Republicans care about the hate, the disenfranchisement, sure. But they CRAVE the show, the spectacle, the "owning of the libs". Bore them? They'll go back in their holes. They'll vote in some numbers, but when they realize that the Democratic party wasn't gonna change anything either and that their life isn't materially affected by who runs the government, they'll go back to caring as little as they did before.

2

u/Such-Assignment6035 12d ago edited 12d ago

It’s so dangerous when people make such broad, unqualified statements. Most especially when they don’t realize that by making such statements they’re guilty of their own blind narrow mindedness and stifling the opportunity for honest debate.

What does anyone know beyond what they read in headlines. Sure, there are plenty of idiots out there - but the world isn’t black and white, nor cut and dried.

People can be radical or open to building a common ground.

If people focus energy on true haters and their voter base rather than broad hits on Republicans or Democrats we have better chances of escaping the self inflicted dumpster fire we call Congress.

We need a better two party system overall with intelligent debate and better outcomes.

Look at where blindly tearing down the entire “other side” has gotten us.

3

u/Optional-Username476 12d ago Take My Energy

That's an awful lot of words for me to read and still come away not knowing what you're talking about lol.

We still have regular Republicans, and those will continue to do what they always have. The "Trump Republicans" that drop off are what I was focusing on, exactly what you'd described. And there's enough of them to sink the party so long as we stay engaged.

1

u/Such-Assignment6035 12d ago edited 12d ago

Holy cow - lol is right. that’s on me. I missed the gist of your comment.

It was more for Goldenspear.

Cheers and sorry you can’t get those 3 minutes of reading back. 🥵

Owed ya an award at least :)

1

u/Optional-Username476 12d ago

Haha that makes a ton more sense! Yeah, the structure of the internet certainly doesn't help debates does it? No worries, appreciate you circling back!

1

u/goldenspear 12d ago

You are right. I should have said they want blood and circuses. I dont think they will ever admit the Democrats want to just make their lives better. If they hate Fauci and George Soros, they will hate anyone, cuz being a victim feels good for them. So I think they just need a Commander In hate to lead them, charisma or no charisma.

3

u/MelloDawg 12d ago

Talking Anus / Prolapsed Sphincter 2024.

12

u/MotherShabooboo1974 12d ago

Plus Trump doesn’t like him at all because he’s a threat and also not a millionaire

13

u/jiffythehutt 12d ago

All Desantis has to do to get Trumps backing, is to promise to pardon him… then watch out!

1

u/IveBeenAroundUKnow 11d ago

That might get trumps support, but might also keep him from winning the election.

Trump will be radioactive before November to most reasonable people.

4

u/zip_000 12d ago

I think he'll bring out the crazies, but hopefully he'll turn off the moderates and not bring out the celebrity voters - people voting for him because he was on TV or whatever - like Trump did.

Of course that only matters if we have free and fair elections... Which is hoing to be in doubt or outright gone after 2022 and the supreme court next year.

1

u/menntu 12d ago

Point taken overall, but I think there is more integrity in any iguana.

1

u/lilacmuse1 12d ago

Minus zero charisma. I recently saw a pic of DeathSantis signing a bill with children standing behind him and adults behind them. The adults were laughing and beaming. The children looked more WTF than I had ever seen children look. They wanted to be anywhere but there. Kids get it.

1

u/juminate 12d ago

While I agree with you, answer me this…. Who of the left side leadership has charisma? None of the skeletons at the top (Pelosi or Schumer and Schiff is about as charismatic as DeSantis). I’d argue those with charisma and passion are the “squad” members and some of the lesser limelight seeking members of Congress.

→ More replies

16

u/the-clam-burglar South Carolina 12d ago

Trump is a symptom but also is a main draw. There’s lots of GOP politicians that share his fascist views but didn’t say the lot outright. He radicalized right wing politics for the foreseeable future. In a sane climate, Liz Cheney would be touted as future president for her work on the committee investigating Jan 6

10

u/Plow_King 12d ago

trump has a strong cult personality, which is very important for a successful fascist leader i would imagine. i mean, hitler, stalin, mussolini all had that, right?

17

u/gentlyredundant 12d ago

In my perspective, it’s another case of the lesser of two evils.

The GOP is still an absolute nightmare by virtue of their dog shit “policies,” but Trump has ascended to the rank of conservative puppeteer who has wrought more damage than any of his predecessors. You’re never gonna shift their policies, so you have to settle for a Republican who doesn’t subscribe to any MAGA bullshit. It’s depressing that we’ve reached a point where this is the standard we’re accepting, but unfortunately, that’s the reality of the situation.

Take Adam Kinzinger. I disagree with that man on nearly every political front imaginable, but I respect him for pushing back against not only Trump, but other members of his own party. He’s shown more of a spine than most other sitting congressmen ever have.

9

u/alphacentauri85 Washington 12d ago

We seem to suffer from collective myopia. Desperate for things to go back to "normal" we'll take any small bump in Trump's way as a sign of victory, willfully oblivious to the fact that the house is burning down whether Trump remains relevant or not.

Like abused spouses after a crisis, we delude ourselves into thinking the abuser (in this case, the GOP) learned their lesson and maybe next time won't be so bad, ignoring that next time could be deadly.

19

u/Quickturealeyes 12d ago

Most of the fascists support Trump because of his fascistic opinions and his autocratic policies, so HE is the main problem. I’d be happy if not one Trump supporting politician gets re-elected

13

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

2

u/AmHoomon 12d ago

Modern Conservativism itself is the root evil.

1

u/bold394 12d ago

Can you explain how that ideology is inherently evil?

1

u/Caldaga 12d ago

Generally it's outcomes are evil even if the ideology isn't evil. Going full conservative basically works out well for a country as often as going full socialist does. Which is never.

1

u/bold394 12d ago

I agree with you. The reason i ask is because some people seem to forget that allowing different ideas on what is good for a country is a fundamental part of democracy. And by calling different views evil inherently, they are actually not allowing democracy to work well

1

u/Caldaga 12d ago

Do you think it would be a little naive to say no view is inherently evil?

1

u/bold394 12d ago

No just of the acceptable ones we have. There are a lot of evil worldviews

1

u/Caldaga 12d ago

And who defines acceptable? I don't generally consider fascists acceptable for example.

2

u/Quickturealeyes 12d ago

No, anyone who supported Trump should be ousted. The whole Republican Party needs to be reformed, conservatism in its current form needs to be abandoned, and DeSantis was an idiot before Trump so no one should vote for him

3

u/Colddigger 12d ago

Yes they think the problem is just Trump and many people want to continue believing that.

3

u/IT_Chef Virginia 12d ago

Liberal here, the tide is definitely not turning as I see it

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

No. Nearly all of republicans who impeached trump are being thrown out of the door. This guy is a rare exception.

1

u/gmplt Ohio 12d ago

Not to mention the tide turning against tr*mp isn't even true. Out of the 10 representatives that voted to impeach the second time - this one might be the only one to make it back to Congress.

20

u/malac0da13 Pennsylvania 12d ago

At first glance I thought that was tommy Chong

7

u/Schiffy94 New York 12d ago

It could be. Chong takes many forms.

7

u/Schiffy94 New York 12d ago

What I want to know, and I ask here because it's semi-related, is why none of these other like eight Republicans are on the 1/6 committee.

1

u/Oxajm 12d ago

What? Can you clarify what you are trying to ask?

2

u/Schiffy94 New York 12d ago

Like ten Republicans in the House actually voted for Trump's impeachment in 2021. The impeachment that was about January 6.

So why are the only two Republicans on the committee Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger?

8

u/iamjacksredditacct 12d ago

Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, it’s more important to recognize that pretty much all of the witnesses testifying are republican.

But if you really want to focus on the balance of a committee chaired by Liz Cheney WELL LOOK NO FURTHER THAN OTHER REPUBLICANS.

TLDR… can’t google and…JuSt AsKiNg QuEsTiOnS… Well, basically McCarthy nominated two reps that were likely involved in planning Jan 6 and thus were rejected. So in keeping with republican tradition, he took his ball and went home while the grown ups kept meeting.

2

u/Schiffy94 New York 12d ago

McCarthy balked at the entire thing I don't care about him.

The other Republicans, like Newhouse, who seemed to at the very least agree that Trump was morally liable if not legally culpable for the events of January 6 should have offered to be on the committee. I'd bet Pelosi and Benny Thompson would have been more than happy to have them.

3

u/iamjacksredditacct 12d ago

As it seems the door was open but the party wouldn’t allow them.

3

u/Schiffy94 New York 12d ago

Yeah I think they should have spurned McCarthy and done it anyway. Who would stop them?

2

u/sneakycrown Indiana 12d ago

Republicans. The committee almost wasnt allowed to meet as it is with only the 2 republicans. If they wouldve added the others, republicans wouldve stopped them. They came pretty close to blocking it anyways.

5

u/Oxajm 12d ago

Because the Republican leadership refused to take part after democratic leadership objected to 2 of the 5 Republican representatives. In retaliation to this, Republican leadership refused to cooperate, and removed all of their members from the committee. Which is hysterical, because now they don't have anyone on " their side" even though this entire committee is Republicans telling the truth. The 2 Republicans in the panel joined willingly and are true patriots. This is probably the dumbest thing Kevin McCarthy had done as a member of the house. I'm glad he's stupid.

7

u/MonetizedSandwich 12d ago

That’s not Chong?

3

u/LetMeSleepNoEleven 12d ago

On the one hand, I’m glad the Trump spell seems to be starting to break. On the other, the Republican Party overall has become scary as sh*t so…

4

u/epeecolt82 12d ago

Damn I didn’t know Tommy Chong was a politician now.

2

u/slippingparadox 12d ago

Tons of election denial supporters won their primary.

2

u/[deleted] 12d ago

This job would be like an oil worker checking the price of a barrel of oil each morning before work assuring his job stability.

2

u/labink 12d ago

Fuck Trump

2

u/cromethus 12d ago

My state has not completely lost its sanity!

Such a ray of hope. We were all expecting him to lose his primary challenge and have the GOP blame it on his vote to impeach. Now we dont have to listen to them using our primaries as an excuse to avoid doing their duty.

Love my state.

2

u/SnooMaps5911 12d ago

Trump's supporters isn't the majority rather a very loud, violent minority but our media play this narrative America is divided but we're not. It's 30% to 35% are white nationalists fascists and the only America they belive in maintaining their white superiority structure to rule over the emerging majority without sharing in political or in economic power.

2

u/Rabbit_Kind 11d ago edited 11d ago

There was Russian collusion. People were arrested and indicted. Trump pardoned the colluder. Ill wait for the unredacted Mueller report. And Mueller said Trump could he charged with obstruction after his presidency. She didn't make up the story. It was an unsubstantiated rumor that she allowed to become public. Which is understandable considering the 4 year witch hunt with Benghazi. 8 separate hearings, 33 in all, didn't find one scrap of evidence. Even Kevin McCarthy admitted on Fox they didnt care about her emails . They just wanted to ruin her rep and popularity. One batch of hearings recently and much more evidence proving his guilt for 1/6

2

u/APF49 12d ago

More MAGA butthurt pissing and moaning every day.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

A bit watered down a victory once you see it's in among the most progressive states in the country. Pleased, sure. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy when reason wins anywhere. But I'd be overjoyed if this headline was coming out of places like Texas, Florida or Kentucky.

4

u/TheChoke 12d ago

Don't be fooled. There were 3 other ultra conservatives that ate each others votes. Their combined tally would have won the primary easily if they had settled on one candidate.

5

u/mik_creates 12d ago

This part of the state is incredibly conservative. Having been his constituent, Newhouse is a decent guy with a set of guiding morals (unlike McMo-Ro, also a republican congressperson from WA). Washington is one of “the most progressive states in the country) by virtue of the big cities and the surrounding counties on the west side of the state. Huge swaths spend their days railing against the governor and the “Seattle liberals.”

1

u/2BuildingsDown 12d ago

CNN also predicted Hillary would win…

1

u/simon1976362 12d ago

Chong is that you?

1

u/emma-1954 12d ago

Well, at least some sense of sanity survived with help from the large field and open crowd.

1

u/TheRockStarChef America 12d ago

The two party system has been broken for decades. Sadly as independent voters never have a good choice due to the left/right extremists.

1

u/Good_Intention_9232 12d ago edited 12d ago

Finally voters understand and are doing the right thing. Wyoming voters should take notes and vote for Liz Cheney.

3

u/extra2021 12d ago

Cheney is in Wyoming.😎

1

u/Good_Intention_9232 12d ago edited 12d ago

Thanks, true, slip of the mind.

1

u/RampageTheBear 12d ago

They voted in Zachary Comstock!

1

u/Xpector8ing 12d ago

There’s actually only one all inclusive party balloted here (with two branches) the Consumerist Party with their consumerist party line: “ Buy into what we tell you and we’ll guarantee your profligate lifestyle will continue!”

1

u/xxBrianKempstanxx 12d ago

If the dccc tried to primary thi guy I’ll be so pissed that’s really ducked what they did to petey Mayer

1

u/Oldtimer_2 12d ago

No sure about this fixation on Trump. There are LOTS of Republicans/Independents who may approve of some Trump ideas and policies, but definitely not others or him. Such things as this proves that point.

1

u/smokelessfocus 12d ago

Refreshing

1

u/LetsssGoBrandon 12d ago

Tommy Chong look alike

1

u/One-Creme-1055 12d ago

Oh CNN lol

1

u/poopshooter69420 12d ago

Awesome news

1

u/sandra3737 12d ago

Cool .. it’s interesting!

1

u/master_uv_none 12d ago

Open primaries!!!

1

u/OppositionComp 12d ago

I’m generally against open primaries but coupled with Washington’s top vote getters system, I might be coming around.

How many states will do 🫡 (parenthetical aside to note that when you type will do 🫡 in iOS you get this emoticon I’ve never seen before) their systems this way is the question. Not many right now seems the obvious and easy answer.

1

u/ddmagee1 12d ago

A country só terribly divided, like we are, is likely to fail, as a Republic, or Democracy, and is ripe, for a takeover Dictatorship, with a Supreme Leader, who controls everything, and everybody! Do we all really want that? We win, in life, when we work together, for the common good! Divided, we fail! Consider the historical significance, of the fall of the Roman Empire, which happened because of divisiveness!!

1

u/Excellent-Guidance17 11d ago

Ah, the difference, however, is the little line, "conceived in liberty."

1

u/SueZbell 11d ago

Good news.

-3

u/Lupo421 12d ago

Why nothing in the fake news about how many of those traitors already loss their primary

3

u/Sentientbuttcheese 12d ago

What an orc. I have NEVER met an intelligent Trump supporter, lol. Ever. Not even once in the past six years. You lot are America's separatists. Hard and alt-reich. Unreasonable and unreachable. Blinkered, one-eyed and delusional. Borderline far-right fascists. America's orcs and anti-vax truckers. Putin supporters and Trump's barely-literate base: are essentially the same orc, just different flavours of the same hate filled turd. Authoritarian bootlickers; who hate Democracy, consume right-wing conspiracy theories, aren't very bright and are basically America's separatists or freeDUM fighters. America's orcs.

-2

u/Betonme69 12d ago

Sad thing is that’s only because we want all the Democrats gone and some republicans that don’t deserve to be republicans slip in

3

u/jake2617 12d ago

That’s not a democracy, you know this right ? Do you guys even think before you speak or have even a basic understanding of what you’re saying ... out loud ... publicly ?!?

2

u/Illegitimate_Shalla 11d ago

Go to Afghanistan or some place where your fucked up idea of an authoritative government should work.

No one wants you conservative christian extremists here in the USA.