Primary reflections; plus Joe Manchin
Yesterday was primary day in many states and a lot of Trump-endorsed candidates won. You can see some of the results here, here, and here.
There was also a vote in Kansas on abortion rights. The wording of the ballot measure was confusing, in my opinion, although I don’t know whether that was a factor. Here’s what happened:
Kansas voters came out in big numbers to support abortion rights on Tuesday, rejecting a ballot measure that would have said abortion rights are not protected by the state constitution.
Note the double negative.
The ballot measure—in language that abortion advocates criticized for being confusing—asked voters to decide if they wanted to amend the state Constitution to specify that it “does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion,” allowing the state to enact abortion restrictions.
Those who tout this as a repudiation of Dobbs either don’t understand Dobbs or are lying. What Dobbs did was throw the issue back to each state, and Kansas was making its own decisions as a state.
Other states will be voting on abortion, too, and that is exactly the way that Dobbs was meant to work, and exactly the way the entire process would have gone had Roe not interfered and created a federal right long ago.
The following is unrelated, but it’s as good a place as any to put it. Joe Manchin continues on his merry way, betraying his constituents in West Virginia, but (a) he’s done it before and been re-elected (for reasons I’ve never quite understood – the re-election part, that is); and (b) I’m not so sure he cares if he’s re-elected or not. He’s probably getting (or has been promised) some sort of reward for what he’s doing, plus most people may not realize he’s about to turn 75. He looks younger than that, but in 2024 he’ll be 77 and he may be fine with retiring at that point, even though he’s sometimes said he’d like to run again.
More data for political junkies.
https://mediarightnews.com/anti-trump-peter-meijer-who-voted-for-impeachment-loses-primary-race-in-shocking-upset/
ANTI TRUMP PETER MEIJER WHO VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT LOSES PRIMARY RACE IN SHOCKING UPSET
Cook Political’s Dave Wasserman was shocked to see U.S. House Rep Peter Meijer (R-MI) lose his Republican primary to John Gibbs.
Wasserman went on to detail how anti-Trump Republicans are at risk of becoming an endangered species so to speak.
“Meijer is the second pro-impeachment Republican to lose a primary (four others opted to retire). With no realistic primary path for #WYAL Rep. Liz Cheney (R), there will be at most 3/10 pro-impeachment Rs remaining in the House in 2023.
Regarding Dobbs…how might one explain this?
‘Biden DOJ Sues Idaho Over “Near-Total Ban” On Abortion’—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-doj-sues-idaho-over-near-total-ban-abortion
…except by describing it typical, systematic “Biden” gaslighting….
Here in Washington’s 4th district, Dan Newhouse will retain his seat, because of a strategy splitting Republican votes.
There were 7 Republican candidates running (including Newhouse) and the one candidate most likely to defeat Newhouse, came up short. At this point Newhouse has 21,000 votes, while the only Democrat candidate has 20,000.
But the remaining Republican candidates split the vote with Culp (who previously had run for governor) with 16,000 while others had 8,000, 6,000, 2,000 on down.
It was pretty obvious this was a strategy by Newhouse and it worked. The district is so large it was impossible to make people aware that only Culp had a chance to defeat Newhouse.
Washington state has an open primary, so there may have been some Democrat crossover, since there is no chance a Democrat would be elected in this district.
The district includes large agricultural areas that would benefit from illegal aliens and I suspect that’s why Newhouse voted to impeach President Trump. Newhouse has supported a democrat bill to give amnesty to illegals.
I’ve never seen the amount of advertising during the primary– all of it by Newhouse. It was absurd and just reinforces the idea that Newhouse was being paid off for his impeachment vote.
Griffin:
The Newhouse primary win is a disappointment. He had a particularly slimy attack ad about Culp running the day before the election.
I imagine Kansas conservatives will be back, with another proposed amendment which may not be misinterpreted.
I don’t care for Idaho’s law, which is too restrictive, in my opinion. However, I wonder how the DOJ is going to prevail in these lawsuits, in the face of the Dobbs decision. DOJ’s claim is that Idaho physicians are violating federal law which requires “emergency medical care” for all. So far as I know, the Idaho law, like all other states, permits actual emergency terminations of pregnancies which are a serious threat to the mother’s life. The DOJ, then, must be redefining elective abortions as “emergency medical care.” The SCOTUS specifically said these are state matters, not federal.
Thats how graham won the primary in 2018
The usual suspects are at work trying to steal Kari Lake’s victory in the Arizona GOP governor primary. As of 11:30 AM the day after the election Arizona time, the state’s most populous county, Maricopa, has not yet released their votes and they claim they will not release them until 7 PM tonight. Recall the open warfare between the County Board of Supervisors and the election irregularities investigation commission from the Arizona Legislature. The Arizona secretary of state and the county elections supervisor are rabid Democrats
Sometimes you can only despair.
I read some NeverTrump idiot on Twitter whining about awful MAGA candidates beating establishment GOPers in primaries, supposedly putting at risk Republican victories in November.
If people would rather vote for a kook than an establishment candidate, it’s not the kook’s fault. It’s not the voters’ fault, either. It’s the fault of the establishment for sucking so hard.
Mike
Which twit (any of them) ducey, is just blanc mange bailey in illinois believes in freedom kent in washington who else
The full ballot language is here: https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_No_State_Constitutional_Right_to_Abortion_and_Legislative_Power_to_Regulate_Abortion_Amendment_(August_2022)#Text_of_measure
And the actual language is:
I don’t really understand what this amendment, especially the second sentence, is trying to accomplish. So now the state legislature can’t pass any laws on the subject matter reflected in the second sentence? Presumably, before the passage of this amendment, the legislature could have done so. In other words, everyone should have left well enough alone, i.e., this amendment should never have been proposed in the first place. (I.e. further, it’s not merely ambiguous; it was unnecessary up front.)
The full ballot language is here: https://ballotpedia.org/Kansas_No_State_Constitutional_Right_to_Abortion_and_Legislative_Power_to_Regulate_Abortion_Amendment_(August_2022)#Text_of_measure
And the actual language is:
I agree that this is extremely poorly worded. But actually, this proposal — presumably by the pro-life side — should never have seen the light of day. It looks like the proponents failed to anticipate the implications of a rejection, or were too sure of themselves. Now, the state legislature can’t pass any laws on the subject matter reflected in the second sentence, right? Presumably, before the passage of this amendment, the legislature could have done so, as a legislature can do what it wants within the constraints of the relevant constitution. Everyone should have left well enough alone.
https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/georgia-secretary-of-states-office
I thought it was open ended but it was the same argument of dobbs
Watt,
The measure was rejected, so the legal situation now should be exactly the same as it was before the election. What I don’t know is whether the Kansas Supreme Court had already “defined” the state constitution to guarantee at right to an abortion or a right to a free abortion.
I agree it sounds like the conservative pols were too sure of themselves. It used to be a “common sense” (ha) notion that the gov. should not be funding something that many people find abhorrent. That they mixed that in with the right to have an abortion might have been a mistake. That all assumes the voters understood the measure.
The wording of the ballot measure was confusing, in my opinion… Note the double negative.
–neo
That drove me crazy in California, home of the innumerable election propositions.
It was one reason I liked voting cards from various sources to cut through the confusion of having to count the not’s to see what canceled.
“Joe Manchin continues on his merry way, betraying his constituents in West Virginia, but (a) he’s done it before and been re-elected (for reasons I’ve never quite understood – the re-election part, that is)” neo
A tried and true recipe, of which ignorance, corruption and greased palms are the primary components.
Re: Manchin
I’ve come to appreciate the model in which people contribute what they can contribute, which most likely is not perfect, but is what it is. Then it all adds up to a Longer Song.
That Manchin has regressed to the mean should not entirely invalidate that he held up the Democrat Mean Machine for 18 months or so.
Which in part is a testament to our strength.
Eyes on the Prize.
clearly politicians aren’t to be trusted, but neither are the bureaucrats who run everything. All I know is that November will be interesting. One thing I have learned here in CA, voting isn’t enough, one must keep on top of issues and constantly badger ones officials. If more of us did this, they wouldn’t be so free with all their power grabs. But life in America was so easy for year, you’d vote every 2 years, and things didn’t change much. Well, it’s a new reality now
It appears to me that Kansas voters don’t trust their legislators, and want abortion rules within tneir Constitution, thereby insuring a plebiscite. I see a series of proposed Constitutional amendments coming, starting with one banning partial birth abortion then proceeding to banning third trimester abortions, second trimester abortions, after fetal brainwaves, and after fetal hearbeat.
Eventually, they will arrive at “The Kansas solution”.
Or just maybe the people of Kansas didn’t want such a strict ban on abortion.
Poll after poll shows that a majority think first trimester abortions are pretty much ok, but second and third should be banned or highly restricted. Most people are also ok with “morning after” pills, which also would have been banned.
The Pro-life side only wants total bans.
The Pro-choice side wants no regulation at all.
This is going to go on for a while.
I would be completely pro-choice, but my side believes in “access only” and not safe clinics. I have to go to pro-life websites to see how horrible these clinics are. No one ever talks about it, so these clinics get away with hurting women when they need assistance the most. And this is before AND after Gosnell in PA
https://abortion911.com/ – website that keeps record of emergencies, health code violations, and deaths of abortion patients
https://abortionworker.com/ – a website for former abortion workers exposing the abusive and unsterile conditions in abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood
Now that Manchin appears to have allowed himself to be co-opted by Schumeresque machinations, here’s an update on the Sinema half of that most unusual sinemanchin duo:
“Sinema Stalls Revamped Reconciliation Bill, Demands Several Changes”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sinema-stalls-revamped-reconciliation-bill-demands-several-changes
@Fred:Or just maybe the people of Kansas didn’t want such a strict ban on abortion.
There was no kind of ban on abortion being voted on, strict or loose. There’s no constitutional right to drive a car, but driving is not “banned” now is it?
Lies such as this, about what was being voted on, played a huge role in the result I don’t doubt.
They had a priest on speaking about government control over religious freedom no joke
This is why they bounced kobach through some bogus lawfare scheme
Of course neither Manchin nor Sinema were ever principled defenders of the norms. They were simply holding out for their price.
As were the 17 R’s who helped the CHIPS bill pass. When the Generals play the Globetrotters, they all get paid. But the Generals and Globetrotters don’t get to confiscate part of your paycheck…
The primary business of the Senate and House is to build their personal influence and wealth by spending our tax money on, and tweaking our laws to benefit, people with connections. There are a few people in each party who are maybe there for issues and their principles, but an absolute majority in both the Senate and the House are swamp creatures who will betray their voters as often as they can get away with it. And it is this absolute majority, made up of both R’s and D’s, who I call “the Globetrotters and the Generals”.
If the red wave a lot of us are hoping for materializes–a big “if” given the thumb the media and the unelected part of the government have on the scale–it’s mostly going to result in the R’s becoming the Globetrotters and a lot of sad conservatives in 2024. Possibly some dramatic Senate votes in which one lone R Senator poses as the guardian of the Republic and blocks whatever it is the R’s are pretending to try to do…
The only way it could be different is if a large number of people elected this year are outsiders to national politics, enough to crack that absolute majority. If that doesn’t happen, the “Red Wave” isn’t going to change anything. The media of course will make any right-leaning outsiders look as unhinged and ridiculous as they can. The Buckley maxim to support the most conservative electable candidate is a rule that mostly benefits the Swamp–because they are the ones who get to say that someone is “electable”.
We didn’t vote our way into the Swamp, and we will not vote our way out… more is required, if change is really important.
Not sure that Globetrotters schtick entirely explains Manchin’s—albeit bizarre—decision.
(And might one wonder if he, as the contradictions become more and more apparent, decides to change his mind on this? Is that even possible, i.e., techically?)
Sinema, for her part, has not yet “folded”.
(So I guess we’ll have to wait…)
TommyJay,
You are right. I took the “No” answer as responsive to the second sentence of the resolution, but of course is it responsive to “Shall the following be adopted?”
Just wait and see what happens a week from next Tuesday (8/16) when Wyoming has its Republican primary. Every poll I’ve seen shows Cheney losing to Hageman by a minimum of 20 points, but…
– Cheney has sent out detailed information to Dem-wing voters giving them step-by-step instructions on how to change their registration to “R” for the sole purpose of cross-voting in the primary. Note that it’s not technically illegal to do so.
– Cheney is sending out unsolicited application forms for absentee ballots to registered voters. How do I know? I frickin’ well received one. Note that once again, this is not illegal.
– Over 90% of her “campaign contributions” are from out-of-state donors, including Soros-based PAC’s.
Those actions may be “legal”, but they are (just like Cheney herself) immoral and unethical. We’ll see how much of a difference it makes.
The Globetrotters schtick has passed its expiration date.
Miguel @ 3.42 p.m.,
That’s an important link (‘Georgia Secretary of State’s Office Admits To 2020 Election Recount “Errors” ‘)
I well remember—I imagine we all do—those triumphalist harrumphs, jeers and snorts (from all the usual suspects/blowhards) after the Georgia “recount” “clearly proved” that Biden had “won” in Georgia….etc., etc…
(Of course all they really did was recount the same old bogus ballots as far as I can recall. There STILL WAS NO chain of custody…so the whole exercise was GIGO. IIRC….)
Well, chalk up another one for the “Uncontested Election”(TM) tribe….
Blackwing1, do they have a mechanism for write-in ballots in Wyoming?
That is, should Cheney’s dark shenanigans succeed, can Hageman still run (via write-in ballots) in the Nov. election if he loses the primary?
…Nonetheless, while I’m inclined to agree with Huxley @7:24 p.m., there’s an extremely foul odor wafting about Manchin’s decision….
“Not so green? Dems offer to push Manchin’s pipeline to secure his support for $739B climate plan”—
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/democrats-offer-support-manchins-pipeline-secure-his-support-climate
…A rank and putrid “odor” from which the entire country—AND ITS FUTURE—is downwind.
A distinct “odor” of ethical decay…of moral corruption…of warped and twisted compromise….
Of nothing good.
“can Hageman still run (via write-in ballots) in the Nov. election…?”
Going by the recent history of elections with a strong third party, that would pretty much guarentee a D win.
LIz Chenney is doing the bidding of the Dems so BFD. I seriously doubt there are enough Dems in Wyoming to make any difference for Crazy Lizzy if every single one switched to vote in the Republican primary.
so Iraq was a theatre of choice, now the Gulf War in retrospect really was ill advised, who benefited from it, the Saudis and Kuwait, had the king taken up Bin Laden on his offer, we would have been rid of AQ in short order, the Kurds and the Shia certainly didn’t benefit, the latter became more sympathetic to Iran,
manchin was the long ago protege of gauleteir william byrd, his daughter is the ceo of mylan, whose critically necessary epipen was gauged up to outrageous levels, a life and death choice for tens of thousands,
Frederick:
Unless I’m misunderstanding the Kansas vote – and I suppose it’s possible that I am – a possible ban on abortion was indirectly involved, by implication. In other words, keeping the right to abortion in the constitution bans a ban on abortion, until the constitution is amended to allow otherwise.
it wasn’t it just affirmed dobbs, and it made it possible to regulate the procedure,
it was just more tripe,
miguel cervantes:
It affirmed Dobbs in the sense that it was the state deciding on abortion. However, in 2019 the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution includes a right to abortion, based on reasoning such as this:
That was in the Roe days, of course.
Kansas presently allows abortions up to week 22. What was being voted on was whether that state constitutional right to abortion should remain or whether the state constitution should be interpreted as establishing no right to abortion. In that sense, at least for now as a result of both the earlier Kansas Supreme Court decision plus this week’s vote, the state can’t ban abortion entirely unless they amended the state constitution to specifically say that abortion could be banned because the language in question does not establish a right to abortion (which was what the Tuesday vote was about) – or unless the Kansas Supreme Court revisited the question and interpreted the present wording of the state constitution differently than previously. Apparently, however, even now the state could restrict abortion to a shorter gestation period.
@ Frederick > ” The Buckley maxim to support the most conservative electable candidate is a rule that mostly benefits the Swamp–because they are the ones who get to say that someone is “electable”.”
Thank you for articulating something that I have thought about for some time now.
I don’t think Buckley really did much to preserve Conservatism in the sense that many of us define it, but only some version that was just enough to the Right of center to pretend that he was.
No references – just a gestalt of impressions over the years.
Pingback:Joe Manchin announces ... - The New Neo