The republican party has no one to blame but itself for losing the senate . . .

The republican party has no one to blame but itself for losing the senate . . .

Exhibit A, of course, would be “Herschel Walker”.

Media outlets touted his matchup against Warnock as “historic” because it was the first time 2 black americans had contended for the same senate seat.

My take is different – it was historic because Walker may have been the “most poorly vetted” and “least qualified” candidate in my lifetime.

I'm not saying EVERYONE needs to be a college graduate to be elected to national office. But if someone is a dropout, that should raise some sort of question, no? Even John Fetterman, Pennsylvania's most deplorable politician, managed to graduate.

What else is deplorable about Walker?

How could the GOP totally miss – or willfully ignore – so many women that would come forth and tell stories of beatdowns administered by him, during 'roid rages'? The abortions paid for by this supposedly pro life candidate? His three out of wedlock children? This is supposedly the fundamentalist Christian candidate, right? Or is he a closet Mormon?

How many senators completely reject evolution? Walker did. “You didn't read the same bible I did. If man came from apes, why are there still apes?” Why, indeed Hershel. You raise an ironic point, but without a scintilla of self awareness, lol.

Herschel told at least one newspaper that his senate candidacy would help republicans achieve control of the House of Representatives, indicating a stunning lack of basic political awareness.

He theorized that “a vampire can kill a werewolf” during a campaign speech, without even being asked about it in any way.

He opposed environmental regulation because “our good air is just going to drift over to china” and they'll get the benefit.

I searched in vain for evidence that Walker believes the sun orbits around the earth. Haven't found it yet, though.

Herschel's campaign managed to dodge almost every hot button issue of the past several years – ruinous inflation; the national debt (which has now reached $300,000 per american family). Failing public schools. Homelessness. Substance abuse. Give him a checkmark for “secure our borders” and “support small businesses” though, even those there haven't been top issues recently for most voters.

The GOP is solely to blame for this mess. They failed in any way to “vet” Walker's past, or ascertain what scandals could render him unelectable. GOP string pullers became captive to the MAGA storyline that only candidates endorsed by Trump were electable.

I applaud Walker's various athletic feats, including his brief stint as an Olympic bobsledder, and impressive onscreen appearances as a kickboxer and “mixed martial artist”. The man has persistence, I will admit. I don't endorse his beatdowns of girlfriends, platoon of illegitimate kids, or related skullduggery.

Walker – here's my advice: You're too old to continue this Mixed Martial Arts nonsense. And you have mega financial obligations to your baby mommas and kids. Why not hook up with something like that George Forman grill thing, or some cable TV auto warranty deals? That's worked for so many people. And you're not going to get asked stuff about apes, air pollution, or vampires. I can pretty much guarantee it.

Good luck!

ElwoodBlues · M

@helenS says

A two-party-system, as established in the US and many other countries, is a threat to a republican governmental system, in my opinion. One party comes out of elections as a winner, the other one as a loser. You guys will always have a clear winner, and that's not good. Countries with 10 smaller parties (such as Holland) are different, because no party will ever be the absolute winner, and they are all forced to compromise. And compromising is at the core of all good politics.

First off, I totally agree, good politics is based on compromise; without it we'll never achieve anything.

However, I think if you look below the surface, many multi-party systems actually have a lot in common with the US two party system. Just substitute the word 'coalition' for 'party' and you have a certain amount of long-term stability with control shifting between the coalition for more or less the status quo and the coalition for greater change.

And if you look beneath the surface of the two US parties, they function more or less like coalitions. As the center of gravity of the republican party shifted from the Midwest to California to the South, republican primary winners tended to emerge from each new center of gravity (until Trump). And on the democratic side, a born-again farmer like Carter is very different from Dukakis who was very different from Bill Clinton who's very different from Obama.

In other words, each party is really a coalition of different demographic, economic, and foreign & defense policy cliques, and different interests rise to the top of the party at different times. Much like a multi-party system.

room101 · 51-55, M

@ElwoodBlues I'm not entirely convinced that differing interests within a given party equates to, or even resembles, a multi-party system.

I grew up in the UK with its Parliamentary system. If the position of a given politician does not resonate with the electorate, then he or she does not get enough votes to become an MP. Consequently, one finds that the interests of that party are aligned across the vast majority of the MP's of the party. This is why each party publishes its formal manifesto at election time.

However, as [@ helenS] points out, coalitions regularly exist in multi-party systems. Obviously, the fact that no one party manages to secure enough MP's makes that a necessity. Sometimes, too much choice makes voting difficult.

When we look deeply enough at policy etc, how much variation can there realistically be? In my view, not very much. This means that voters will consider two factors. First, what that candidate will do (or has done) for his constituents. Second, what does the overall party actually stand for, what's in its manifesto?

I strongly believe that democracy is a fragile thing and a two party system exploits its fragility.