Cheney and Kinzinger still take the heat from party members in public for looking into the Jan. 6 Capitol protest/violence….
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of just two Republicans on the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, said Wednesday that “a lot” of GOP lawmakers have privately conveyed support to him, as he stressed that “nobody actually believes” the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.
“There’s a lot of people, you know. They come up and say it,” Kinzinger told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room” of his Republican colleagues privately signaling support. “It’s not any of the ones that go on TV and spout the ‘Big Lie,’ and then say it. It’s the ones that are staying more quiet that I think appreciate the stand. But it’s a lot.”
And while GOP lawmaker have publicly echoed Trump’s election lies, the Illinois Republican maintained that “nobody actually believes the election was stolen from Donald Trump. But a lot of them are happy to go out and say it was.”….
This is what exactly?
So Kinzinger is admitting essentially that his Republican colleagues are fakes and frauds?I think we already knew that.
They are not leaders?No they are a bunch of two bit political hacks,captives if you will of the extreme Right Wing Trumpist trash that now overwhelming dominate the Republican Party.Scared to tell the truth for fear of the political blowback.
And what we are supposed to say”, gee poor guys?”
Count me out.
But we’re supposed to donate to his campaign to save Democracy Jack. You got your marching orders.
The only thing that will protect Democracy is a Democratic Majority in both the House and Senate.
The only way we can save Democracy is by voting for Democrats.
I applaud Cheney and Kinzinger’s efforts, but from everything we know about the GOP, the most likely scenario is that both are defeated in their primaries. Clearly, Democrats have better options for campaign contributions than giving to conservatives. I don’t see CG giving campaign contributions to moderate Democrats who are being challenged from the left. And why would he?
You will never “save” democracy by having one party rule. You will always need at least two parties.
Wyoming is not going to send a Democrat to Congress, so your choice would be between Liz Cheney and a Trumpist. Politically, it makes sense for Democrats to have all their opponents be Trumpsists, which is why so many of them want Trump to be nominated again for President and to have Cheney defeated. I thought Zreebs felt otherwise, but maybe not. Clearly, Trump would be the easiest Presidential candidate for Democrats to beat, so if Democrats and Democrats only is the only hope from their perspective, then obviously they will want Trump to be renominated.
It is still undermined what district Kinzinger will have to run in based on the map that Illinois Democrats are still working on. They could try to make it so that he has completely new areas and is thus more likely to lose to a Trumpist in a solid red district or they could cut up his district and make it blue to try to make him go away politically as well.
For the record, I once did donate to a moderate Democrat I knew from online running against a more liberal opponent, but I have not made it a habit of donating to Democrats. For one thing, someone like Michael Bloomberg did not need my money. I did not donate to Biden but voted for him. Which was more important? If the situation were the same as what Cheney or Kinzinger face, I would probably understand the importance though. I suppose I might donate to a Manchin or Sinema in the future.
If the GOP disappears, another party will take is place. I don’t have any doubt of that whatsoever. And that might be a good thing for the GOP to be replaced.
The Democrats can’t win in Wyoming and the extremely conservative Cheney is likely the best we can get, but it is possible that if Kinzinger gets the nomination, enough Trumpists will stay home and a Democrat might win in an upset. Or perhaps the kinzinger voters will stay home in the General if a Trumpist wins the nomination.
I am surprised that you have donated to a Democrat in the past. I haven’t ever donated to a Republican, but then I rarely donate to political campaigns,
Who would compose the other party?
It will be Republicans under a different name. Either Trumpsits or the NeverTrump faction. In theory, such a divided opposition would make it much easier for Democrats to win, which of course I understand the appeal of the thought to Democrats, but it would also make them less accountable, and less democratic.
Most likely, the Republican Party is not going away anytime soon. I think we all know that. Donating is a personal choice and by no means am I asking any specific person to make a donation, but the idea of wanting to see the best possible representation of a political party or awarding courage within it should not be attacked out of hand.
In the short term, the other party would differentiate from the GOP in at least one major way. Otherwise, why form a new party? In the long term, the former Trumpists will move on in much the same way that the white supremists moved from the Democratic Party to the GOP decades ago. And there will likely be some moderation of the Trumpists over time in much the same way that conservatism once stood for fiscal discipline instead of borrow and spend today.
In the short term, there would be “the Republican Party” which would either be composed of Trumpists only or NeverTrumpers. And then there would be a splinter faction.
Obviously, this would make things much rosier for Democrats in the short term. In the long term, many traditional or moderate Democrats, unhappy with the left-ward shift in that party, might join up with the NeverTrumpers and form the largest party in the country…. and that is how Eric Adams winds up as President one day….?
I agree with CG….
You need at least two to tango….
Zreebs is totally correct.
The GQP is anti-Democracy and anti-science. Why would anyone contribute money to those people?
Speaking generally and not specifically towards any one individual, those who truly understand the concepts of democracy and loyalty to the truth will understand the concept. That is why Cheney and Kinzinger have been doing very well in their fundraising.
Generally speaking, those who view democracy as purely a loyalty test to a party, or an individual, or an ideology instead of the country itself will feel differently. Their self-serving desires will want to see the other side destroyed, regardless of the consequence.
For some, every Democrat must the “The Squad” and as we do see, even here, for some, every Republican must be a “Trumpist.”
Once again why would anyone support a party that is pro-voter suppression and anti-science?
They can’t even agree to wear masks in the face of a pandemic. They don’t understand the concept of science.
Without accepting the premise of the claims, perhaps to try to bring about positive change within it?
Again, complete one party rule is about as anti-democratic as you can get.
The only way we will have one party rule is if the Trumpists control the presidency and both houses. Because the GOP did not win in 2020, they felt the need to mess with the voting rules. Had they won, there would be no attention on this except perhaps in swing states that they lost,
Republicans know that the voting lines are longer in urban Democratic districts, and they know they can make them even longer when they Impose various measures. But not everyone can wait six hours in line to vote, and the GOP knows that will discourage Some voters from voting.
If the Senate winds up 100-0 Democrat and the House 435-0 Democrat, it will be very un-democratic. The idea was expressed on here that “only voting for Democrats” is the only acceptable action.
If someone prefers Democrats, then by all means vote for them, but it should not upset someone that others might want to see the Republican Party be as positive a force for the country as possible.
Many patriotic Democrats do get this, which is why they have donated to the likes of Cheney and Kinzinger.
He, he, he….
CG?
THAT was a VERY unrealistic example…
Ya gotta be a bit more realistic….
I agree that it is never going to happen. There are definitely going to be Republicans in the House.
That is why I do not understand why people here are so dismissive of the idea that it might be good for Cheney and Kinzinger to be among them in the next Congress.
Internal state politics and the two individual districts beside, (at least one of which is totally unwinnable to them) it makes political sense for the national Democrats to have them there. That is why Pelosi put them on the Committee and has been publicly praising them to the hilt.
Do Illinois and Wyoming have open or closed primaries?
Illinois has open primaries and I am pretty sure Wyoming does.
That might help Cheney in Wyoming where some Democrats might cross over as they have no hope of winning there.
However, if the field remains as large as it is now?She should be able to win anyhow.
Trump apparently is trying to get the anti Cheney candidates to unite behind one candidate, ;however, since they all look in the mirror and see a future Congressperson?Likely that won’t be easy.
Trump’s influence in House races is at least somewhat diminished after his fail in Texas this past week.
There is another test case next week in Ohio.
NO CG?????
Trump isn’t ‘fading ‘ is he?
Perhaps Cheney could also down the road consider the possibility of pulling a Lieberman (whom as a partisan Republican I actively rooted for in his last unsuccessful Dem primary.. though he eventually was reelected) and running as an Independent in WY. If that is her only option of getting on the general election ballot, it would then behoove Democrats to support her in the general, just like how most Republicans in Connecticut voted for Lieberman in the general election.
Lisa Murkowski also was reelected doing something similar, with Democrats supporting her in the general election.
I would say it is well higher than 50 percent that Liz Cheney can be reelected in 2022 one way or another.
Though perhaps, she might welcome the chance to take an L and run for President.
In Ohio isn’t Trump s candidate Max Miller?
He’s having to deny allegations he beat up his girlfriend,Stephanie Grisham , a former Trump Press Secretary .
The Gonzalez vs Miller thing (which I read the Politico piece yesterday) is next year
Next Tuesday, is the primary for for the special election in the district Steve Stivers resigned from. There are a lot of candidates running and Trump has given his “total and complete” endorsement to one of them so it will be a big deal if that candidate does not win.
CG says that Cheney will likely win in 2022. But a recent Morning Consult poll shows that Cheney only has a 15% favorability rating of Republicans. Even in a crowded field, those numbers are pathetic for an incumbent. Her problem is not name recognition.
https://www.newsweek.com/liz-cheney-nearly-three-times-popular-among-dems-gop-voters-poll-1593120
Z?
CG IS Right….
So right that GOPer’s are trying to kick out the YUGE number of people possibly splitting the vote….
Remember?
‘ALL politics is Local’…..
That’s a national poll. Not of Wyoming. Remember, all politics is local.
I also pointed out she could win a general election as an Independent with the help of Democrats.
Trump is more popular in Wyoming than any other Republican presidential candidate this century, perhaps because Trump polls better with the poorly educated.
https://www.270towin.com/states/Wyoming
I just think that the poorly educated are More likely to back Trump over Cheney, and Wyoming is loaded with the poorly educated.
The issue isn’t THAT Z….
It’s the Cheney Name and the vast number of people signed up to run against her…
Oh, and she has MORE $$$ then all the others combined….
Talking Points Memo
@TPM
Subpoena Jim Jordan
Link….
The fact that a lot of people are running against Cheney ironically does not increase the odds she will be elected. First of all, that field will winnow significantly. The fact that a lot of candidates are running means that there is likely to be a very strong candidate that emerges. And once that happens, the others will see their support evaporate really fast. There is no reason to vote for someone who won’t get 10% of the vote. The reason that the Green Party and the Libertarians don’t get more votes is not because only 1% believes in that ideology. It is because voters correctly believe that they can’t win, so why waste your vote? A strong candidate will emerge against Cheney and that candidate will win. The GOP will not nominate a pro-democratic (small d) nominee in Wyoming.
On Cheney…..
National GOPer’s ARE worried…..
She says she isn’t…..
Neither does her money…
I’m not prepared to say that Cheney is definantly going to lose,neither am I prepared to say she is going to win.
She’s raising a lot of money.However Wyoming has a very small electorate.They only voted over 300,000 in the presidential election.In an off year you might be looking at 200,000 or less.
Sure there are a lot of opponents today .Lets see how things shake out over the next six months or so.Can Trump unite the opposition behind a single serious foe?We know the state party is against Cheney,Theyve already censured her.
Supposedly the Democrats might save her,Maybe?Who knows though,they might harbor dreams of grandeur themselves?Plus a lot of Democrats are not near as keen on that type of strategic voting as some here seem to think.A lot of them won’t see any difference between Cheney and her opponents.They likely are right.Until Jan. 6,Cheney was a committed Trumpite.
Indeed ,except for Trump?Cheney and her opponents will have almost identical issue stands.A lot of Democrats are going to pay as much or more attention to that than Trump who ,after all, some think is fading as an issue.
So there’s a lot of time for things to move around here.Cheney remains ,in my mind ,a slight favorite given the caliber of opposition and its number of candidates, however, this certainly isn’t any slam dunk.
Neither Cheney nor Kinzinger are likely to survive long term, and probably not even past 2022.
Almost all elected Republicans are Trumpists, and so (unlike you) I tend to think of Trumpists and Republicans as synonymous. Unfortunately, the new Trumpists will likely be smarter and more effective than Trump. And so yes, our democracy is in danger.
I saw Kinzinger on Bill Mahers show awhile back.
The acerbic Maher essentially called him a “goner.”
Kinzinger was philosophical about it saying that he understood he very well might lose but was standing up for what he believes.
He’s become much better known nationally because of all this and will likely have a future,maybe in media, if he loses his seat.
If they outspend divided primary opposition enough, it greatly enhances their chance of victory. Of course, you cannot win without trying. Many others have chosen to retire rather than attempt to “beat the odds.” They have not. They are making a stand and I think it should not be a partisan matter to salute them for it, and of course speaks to the need for them to raise as much money as possible, including from non-typical sources.
It’s NOT that simple on the one party rule thing….
Coming out of the 2018 election the Republicans owned things….
Americans made sure to cancel that BIG Time in 2018….
As I posted here….
Trump and Republicans did NOT change America but so much…
The guys that put this place together and work afterwards has set in place rudimentary but important checks and balances (Filibuster ?)….
No one party has been able to topple the system…
Not even a circus clown entertainer from Queens NY that parades as Real Estate maven….
Democrats controlled the House after 2018.
And I also agree that Republicans with Trump want to ‘Rule’ …..
Right now the Freedom Caucus is trying to throw these two out of the Party.
A Party that thinks Trump won.
You want positive change? You won’t get it from this bunch.
Who was that Democrat you contributed to Corey?
Both House Republicans get and keep their jobs thru elections IN THEIR DISTRICTS…..
And I remind everyone….
Both of the lawmakers we are talking about are thru and THUR REPUBLICANS….
They may Not be taking Trump’s bullshit…
But they are NOT Democrats in any way shape or means…..
That said…
17 Republican Senator’s voted to move ahead with infrastructure ….
Cheney has like 100 people running against her…
She’s survive….
I do N OT know about Kinzinger…..
Democrats in Illinois want to end Kinzinger’s House career because they feel he might one day be an appealing statewide candidate. They would prefer that if Republicans will be around in elective office (and the math of course is that they will have to be around somewhere) they be as Trumpy as possible, It is unknown what kind of district Kinzinger will be thrown into when the maps come out. Democrats in Illinois are notorious partisan gerrymanderers.
Republicans in SC are notorious gerrymanderers.
Indeed I would venture that in every state where the district lines are drawn by the legislative bodies that the majority party,be they Democratic or Republican,are “notorious gerrymanderers.”
It’s happened by both parties on both sides, but Illinois is a larger state and nobody has been remotely as creative in drawing lines as they have been, and this is not just for Congress, but for state legislative districts, and other entities.
Pritzker ran for Governor saying he would support independent maps and would not sign a purely partisan redistricting bill. The new House Speaker pledged the same thing when he ran for Speaker.
Of course, to very few peoples’ surprise,, they outright lied about that.
It happens on both sides as everyone knows.
The only way to “reform” the system at all is to have “independent “ commissions draw the lines.Of course then the question becomes,”how “independent “ are the Commissions.”
Gerrymandering has been with us for since the early days of the country.It will likely be around many more years .
I would support independent commissions everywhere to draw as completely compact geographic lines as possible.
Various racial groups though would demand more creative map making in order to guarantee representation and diversity.
I have said on here before that the current lines for my Congressional district resembles Godzilla on the toilet.
I would support them too..
I currently live in Nancy Maces District.Two blocks away there is a neighborhood in Jim Clyburns district.Essentially the predominant minority areas of Charleston County are in Clyburns district.
If they split up the area, how likely would it be that both districts would wind up being held by white Republicans?
SC 1 was recently won by a Democrat also.
Unlikely. Clybuurn wins by huge margins – bigger than the GOP districts.
Actually with a little more minority population ,SC 1 would be a slightly Democratic District.
Clyburns district is like 68% or so Minority .If it we’re reduced to say 55% Minority?The Republicans would be competitive.
In redistrcting I look for SC1 to become slightly more Republican.Clyburns District will likely remain pretty much the same.
I do not think Clyburn nor the African-American Democrats who wish to succeed him one day want to see that district diluted.
Of course, there is a black politician in the state who has had tremendous statewide success and will easily win again next year.. Republican Tim Scott.
I attribute Cunningham’s victory in 2018 to a really good campaign and the deficiencies of Republican candidate Katie Arrington who inexplicably endorsed offshore oil drilling which is real no no along the S.C. coast where most Republicans are super environmentalists.
That caused a host of Republican mayors in some of the beach communities to denounce her and a couple even made commercials for Cunningham.
Arrington later repented but the damage was done .That and a really good campaign allowed Cunningham to win a narrow victory.
A friend of mine who works for Scott says that Scott is going to run for President.
If there is a complete and total mess in 2024 for Republicans in terms of candidates crashing and burning and the most shameless Trumpists all cannibalizing each other, I could see a scenario where Tim Scott could be nominated.
I think Scott sees himself as a”bridge” between the Trumpists and anti Trumpers.
He’s somewhat of an enigma though.He often muses about getting out of politics completely and becoming a minister.
I don’t know if he will run or not.
But,yeah, as things shake out he could quickly become a major candidate.
Tough place to be supporting Trump as a Black Republican one would think….
I would support independent commissions everywhere too. I once signed a petition to do so in Illinois.
That was Rauner’s project.
Is this the proposed map of Illinois that outrages CG so much? This is much better than the last redistributing.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Rs-85ic7W0nBZ2QPiXsGIazZicynzIco&ll=39.79510521942542%2C-89.50414500000001&z=6
They have not released the Congressional map yet. The primary will be in June next year instead of March because they are holding off on it.
They did release the state legislative maps and they are very favorable to help Democrats obviously.
That map has a ton of districts so that would appear to be the state legislative map or some version of it that was under consideration.
It says “created by a user” so somebody was just having some fun maybe trying to draw districts.
I found it under “Illinois redistributing”. It appeared to be on a Democratic Party website and referenced Chris Welsh’s (IL Speaker of house). But you suggested the IL redistributing maps are still very gerrymandered. Can you share what that map looks like?
https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/2021/05/29/new-legislative-maps-illinois-pass-general-assembly/5260361001/
https://www.wbez.org/stories/illinois-democrats-tweak-legislative-boundaries-in-new-release-of-political-maps/e5ae1023-6eae-4ca0-bac9-c2b1360f83d7
https://news.wttw.com/2021/06/04/pritzker-signs-disputed-legislative-map-law
“The maps, drawn by Democrats who control the General Assembly, are designed to give Democrats a leg up in keeping that control into the future.
For example, no districts will force sitting House Democrats to face off, while the new map creates seven districts that will pit 14 incumbent Republicans against one other.”
Supreme Court district lines were also changed for the first time in 60 years
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-incredible-illinois-gerrymander-11622759603
And they also changed the Cook County Board of Review districts to guarantee it will be 3-0 Democrat. For a long time it had been 2-1 Democrats (and we both voted for the Republican in our Board of Review district but he lost anyway)
but even though it is 3-0 now, the Democrat who took that seat is a gadfly so they changed the map to make sure she is gone after the next election, and the other two Democrats are even trying to in effect impeach her now saying she illegally made her first cousin her Chief of Staff.
If anti Trump Republicans are depending on us Democrats to save the party from Trump then it’s over. The Trumpists won.
Won control of the GOP I mean.
I don’t want that to happen and the Texas special election and the 17 GOP Senators voting for the infrastructure bill may signal a shift in the Republican Party away from Trump and his minions.
Not “depending” on, but help would be nice. Haven’t you ever seen some of the Star Wars movies? The Rebel Alliance had to rely on all sort of coalitions to win battles.
Be an Ewok.
I will point out that Joe Biden needed the votes of anti-Trump Republicans in order to be nominated and to win the general election.
If not for that, then Trump would be President today.
Ideally, we could all fight along the old lines like it is was still 2000 or whatever but the unconventional rise of Trumpism and the dangers and risks entailed perhaps demands a different response.
I don’t buy your theory that Biden needed Republicans to win the primary. He won most primaries very decisively after the African American Democratic base renewed hos campaign in South Carolina.
In the general? Sure he needed votes from the other party. As almost all winning nominees do.
He had strong African-American support. He also in places on Super Tuesday, when Sanders was still very much on the scene, needed the votes of upscale Republican types or people who because of Trump were already “former Republicans.” Both groups played a big role.
General elections, yes, Biden won with the votes of those who had voted for people like McCain and Romney in the past, just like Trump won in 2016 because in some key places, people who had voted for Obama switched to him.
The margin Biden defeated Sanders by in most primary states was far higher than any cross party voting.
This is along the lines of my point. People who had been traditional Republicans, but were turned off by Trump, voted for Biden as the most “moderate” alternative and for pragmatic electability reasons.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/suburbanites-are-backing-biden/607726/
Millions of
Republicans in 1964 either voted for LBJ or skipped voting for President altogether. rather than vote for Barry Goldwater so the skin-tight margin of 1960 turned into a 60 – 40 rout.
Millions of Democrats voted for Nixon or for no-one at all, rather than George McGovern in 1972.
Progressive Democrats Will NEVER survive South Carolina, which effectively picks the nominee for Democrats….
The overwhelimgly Black Democratic population makes the call…
Biden DID get over with some suburban GOPer votes and anti-Trump Republican of which there are some out there despite the media narrative…
One would guess those would NOT tell a polling survey that they knew their party guy was a lying fool….
Obama was not a “Progressive Democrat?”
Bill Clinton would also point out that “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina.”
No Obama was NOT….
He danced with the left for the first several primaries..That’s about all…
It is no secret that even though Biden isn’t either?
He’s to the left of Obama….
Bill Clinton should not be mentioned in the same sentence as South Carolina ….
This “Obama is a moderate” thing never fails to sound ridiculous.
Actually CG?
Every Democrat is a ‘Liberal’ Right?
So, who was the “progressive choice” that lost in South Carolina to Obama?
John Edwards?
Hillary ran to Obama’s right during those primaries. She openly claimed to be the candidate of “hard working white Americans.”
Every Democrat is not a liberal but any who hopes to be among the forefront of the party nationally has to be one and is one. If anyone has been pretending to be more left than he really is (besides jack on here at times) it is Biden, who flip flopped on many issues in order to be nominated. Obama is truly, genuinely, a liberal.
I would have easily said the same thing about conservatives and Republicans in national leadership, until Trump took over the party and that ceased to matter.
After an entire work day of Republican blah, blah the facts remain. The Republicans are anti-democracy and will do anything to stay in power, including trying to overthrow a legitimate election. Two people who didn’t go along are ultimately not going to change that reality.
Why would anyone still vote Republican when it would mean McCarthy and McConnell would be in charge?
I agree Keith….
They ARE trying to change the rules of game in some places around the country….
‘Fair’ is NOT in a lot of their dictionaries…..
Speaking of “no balls?”
Mo Brooks, the Alabama Congressman ,who addressed the assembled Republican mob on Jan. 6 and told them to “take names and kick ass” says he was wearing body armor.
I guess he was afraid of those “ass kickers” he was seeking to inspire by his rhetoric,
Tourism may be harmful to your health and safety, even (or perhaps especially) if you’re in Congress.
Or he knew exactly what they would do. And, if he knew, so did others.
He knew…….