I live in Missouri and am a Republican and can safely say - I did not appreciate Parsons going on a political witch hunt.
Assuming you think that as bad as Parsons is for this, the Democrat opponent is worse - what is the process in Missouri for replacing Parsons on the Republican side of the ballot in the next election?
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/eric-greitens-form...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
As for Russian propaganda, that isn't remotely representative of the forum. You may be falling prey to the bias that causes negative data points to stand out more (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), as well as the bias that causes internet users to feel that other commenters are foreign agents, astroturfers, spies, shills, bots, etc. On the latter, see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If anyone wants an in-depth explanation, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27398725 is one of many.
No, it was not. Partisan would be asking if they were going to switch to a specific different party. I asked if they re-thought their affiliation.
> As for Russian propaganda, that isn't remotely representative of the forum.
I never claimed it was, just that it has increased the past two weeks without much moderation.
> the bias that causes internet users to feel that other commenters are foreign agents, astroturfers, spies, shills, bots, etc.
Another thing I never claimed.
All of these assumptions sound like they may be an example of the Illusion of Asymmetric Insight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight). Is that how this works?
The answer to your question is no. Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based solely on the actions of two members of the party?
I'll also add, other than this small stain, Parsons has been good. No major changes or upsets. It's boring here in Missouri politically, and I like that.
I never suggested that. There are plenty of people walking around who are unaffiliated or support 3rd parties. Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat".
> Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members of the party?
They are not just "two members of the party", they are last two heads of the party in your state. When Republicans stopped doing things I agreed with, I stopped calling myself a Republican.
If only both sides of the fence understood that...
I think you did that because it's pretty obvious why someone might sour on an organization whose highest leaders continued in a pattern of bad behavior. In fact, quite the opposite of your claim here, I think it would be common sense to change your opinion on an organization based on a pattern of misbehavior by its top leaders.
The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level.
Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Both parties suck. There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse.
In this case, it was not a guy but a woman running against Parsons.
(Wow, those are some downvotes! People reacted to this comment like a Missouri voter reacts to a female gubernatorial candidate.)
I'm sure we could compile a list of elected officials across a spectrum of political parties where no consequences are faced (for an action, in-action, decision, cover-up, etc) when they may be warranted. I don't think this is a valid argument.
Is it?
>There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
So, in a sense, by subscribing to a lesser of two evils idea, you're doing the same thing as "the other team is worse" (the thing I said).
It is what it is, negative partisanship does drive everything, and the first step to better politics is admitting we have a problem.
I couldn't have said it any better.
It's all a political theater. (both sides)
Negative Partisanship, drives anger and fear.
Fear and anger drive donations and votes.
Fear and anger drive views/clicks, news outlets and the media, everybody wins!
Wash, rinse, repeat, circa 1776!
You literally just made a both sides argument. I'm not a fan of either party, but I'm also not a supporter of the idea that both sides are both equally bad. Only one side stormed the Capitol in an explicit attempt to reverse en election result they did not like, and persists to this day in insisting that they actually won.
Yes, both sides have some problems, both say and do super annoying things, but 'both sides' is just giving the Republican Party an out, where instead we should hold them to account for trying to tip over the table and destroy our democracy.
If you must register for primaries in your state, then that's fine. But that's where the association would end in my book.
* One abortion clinic in the entire state! It would be zero if not for the pesky courts. If Mike gets his way, Missouri will be "the most Pro-Life state in the country!"
* No permit required for open or concealed carry! Sell or buy your guns with whoever you like. You can even point your guns at filthy liberals with your finger on the trigger and the governor will pardon you of any crimes you may be convicted of
* 54% of the state is fully vaccinated, one of the lowest rates in the country! If you need any more encouragement to visit, masks are optional and actually frowned upon by the better class of Missouri citizens (conservatives)!
* Current Missouri Senator Josh Hawley attempted to overthrow the government on Jan 6!
* No voting by mail! "So if they don’t [feel safe voting in person], then don’t go out and vote". Great words, Mike!
Consider Florida. A lot of people really don't like DeSantis but the alternative the DNC of Florida put up was...a literal methhead[0]. Oregon has Kate Brown who has signed extremely unpopular legislation in Oregon but the opposition was...a guy who isn't even a Republican anymore[1]. Texas has Greg Abbott who is universally hated in Texas after the energy fiasco of 2021 but his opponent is a guy who failed to win a Senate election[2], let alone the governorship (have fun donating to that).
It's easy to look at the political parties of a state's elected representatives and make assumptions about the people there but it's very important to consider the actual people being elected before you draw conclusions about the politics of the citizens.
[0]https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-andrew-gill...
At worst an alleged methhead, which he denies.
> officers were called to a West Avenue hotel around 1 a.m. and found Gillum there with two other men, one of whom was being treated for a possible drug overdose. Gillum was too inebriated to speak with officers, though he was later reported in stable condition and with normal vital signs.
...
> "I was in Miami last night for a wedding celebration when first responders were called to assist one of my friends,” Gillum said in the written release. “While I had too much to drink, I want to be clear that I have never used methamphetamines."[0]
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/13/andr...
Your mistake is understandable because the media ran with the Gillum-is-a-meth-fiend narrative.
I didn't draw any conclusions, they said they were Republican in Missouri who disagreed with the Governor. I simply asked if that made them "re-think" their their affiliation.
That so many people assumed I was asking them to switch to Democrat is evidence of how dug in our society has become. It contains two big assumptions.
1. Re-assessing your affiliation based on political performance is the same as switching to another party
2. If you aren't a Republican, you must be a Democrat
The whole gov/system is by default 2 party system.
Some of the questions that you are asked during your citizenship interview is what are the two main parties.
Im not saying I like it. But it’s a fair assumption to make when literally all voters only consider the two parties.
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
You are given choices of “identifying” as Rep/Dem/Ind. Only two of them are real parties.
What does it mean to be independent then? Is it more like undecided?
Im not sure you can call that a political party.
I'm sure it means different things to different people. For me, it means that I don't follow any party's platform in lockstep. I try to judge each candidate and policy based on merits, not team affiliation and have voted for multiple parties over the years (Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green).
In this particular case, he's running for the exact same set of voters as before for a more prestigious office against a more popular candidate. His policies are less popular than in 2018 and he's done nothing to increase his notoriety in the last four years. This isn't to say he's not a good candidate but I find it reasonable to think that he may struggle for funding this time around more than last.
[0]https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/education/failu...