The fact that Montana congressional candidate Greg Gianforte is originally from New Jersey helps explain the body-slamming and also possibly why he managed to illegally kill an elk “by accident” back in 2000, but it doesn’t do much to explain why he’s a major donor to the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum where creationism meets mentally crippled reasoning.
Since about two-thirds of Montanans had already voted by the time they learned that Gianforte had been arrested after battering a British reporter for having the effrontery to ask him about a Congressional Budget Office score of the American Health Care Act, it’s not assured that he’ll lose today’s election. He had a modest lead in the polls (for whatever that is worth) and most prognosticators were predicting that he’d pull out a narrow victory.
There’s one reason to be hopeful that this insane and violent person will not be joining Congress, and that’s the fact that Democrats have a tendency to utilize early voting a little more often than Republicans. It’s a trend that could be magnified in our present political environment because of a higher level of energy among those in “The Resistance.” It could be that Gianforte was going into Election Day with a deficit that he was going to easily make up today but that he will now fail to overcome.
Some voters will think that abusing a journalist is a plus, but on balance I think it will hurt Gianforte to get arrested while people are going to the polls. The Billings Gazette, The Missoulian and The Helena Independent Record all un-endorsed Gianforte this morning, This incident will hurt him but, coming so late, it may not hurt him enough.
One thing that might become important if Rob Quist wins the special election is that he’d still be an underdog to win reelection, and it now looks unlikely that he’d have to face Gianforte. It’s not that Gianforte is such a formidable candidate. After all, he lost the governor’s race last year even as Trump was carrying the state by 20 points. But Gianforte is a billionaire and billionaires don’t grow on trees.
Be careful there. A major chunk of the Dem lead in early voting is due to the black vote, especially among southern church-going blacks. Thats not exactly a big factor in MT. 2012 stats dont show a huge edge in white states such as ME, OR, CO, and to some degree IA in contrast with states like NC, LA, and MD (I haven’t seen 2016 stats). Perhaps there is a little more enthusiasm this time like you say.
Helpful that the DCCC had no interest in this seat. (Throwing a few bucks Quist’s way late in the campaign doesn’t count — it was nothing but insurance to protect themselves from the leftie rabble.)
Well yeah, it’s part of the early plotting to nominate Hillary Clinton for president again in 2020.
But Bernie thru his support to Quist. Did Sanders not bring his electoral juggernaut early enough? If so, what are we to think of the motivations of Bernie and his supporters? Was their lateness “…nothing but insurance to protect themselves from the leftie rabble”?
If you’re not an agent of a foreign government sent here to attempt to create bitter disagreements between progressives, you should rethink your profession because the Russian Federation would happily compensate you for this level of consistent hostility.
So, Russia (and the Putinists you imagine under every bed) prevented the DCCC and DNC from having any early interest in and support for this House seat and Quist? (While it’s an established fact that DP aligned operations have used paid operatives to troll blogs, that should make you and a few others here more suspect than contrarians you accuse of being paid out of some imaginary Russian funding source. btw — making baseless and false accusations of an individual contributor is super-troll behavior. As is those that reward such trolling.)
The facts are clear — even if your beliefs blind you to them —
Also:
While a drop-off in voters from a general election to a special election is expected, how do you explain that Quist managed to get more votes than any Democratic nominee for this seat in all the past seven general elections? (That’s a rhetorical question because I have no interest in and won’t read whatever lame rationalization you concoct.)
claimed “established fact”, please.
RE:
It is an “established fact” (i.e., widely reported and confirmed by parties involved) that David Brock headed a social-media “rapid response” operation on Clinton’s behalf to refute false information being put out against her. I can only guess this is what you’re referring to.
The credible reporting on this that I have seen did not remotely “establish” as “fact” that this initiative “paid operatives . . . to troll blogs“. E.g., the reporting I recall (iirc) stipulated that Brock et al.’s confirmation of the existence of the operation very specifically included the requirement that its “paid operatives” identify themselves and their comments as part of said initiative. If this requirement was followed, then there is no possible way this activity can be characterized (honestly!) as “troll[ing] blogs”. In fact, I can see no reasonable, valid criticism of it at all.
But of course my recollection could be inaccurate.
Or there may have been credible, subsequent reporting that I just missed.
If so, by all means, please do enlighten me by linking to the factual evidence “establish[ing” the “fact” that what you described, as you described it, actually occurred. Asserting something is “established fact” sets a very high bar, putting a very heavy onus on you to back up the claim with credible, factual evidence.
Alternatively, perhaps some folks latched onto the credible reporting mentioned above and turned it into something like your characterization in order to have something to assuage their hurt fee-fees when (in their perceptions) somebody was mean to them on a blog somewhere? At least that seems a lot closer to characterizing the portion of Reality consisting of my own personal, direct observations and experience. (How many times has some idiot here told me to “go back to dkos”, . . . where I have never spent any significant amount of time”?)
Neatly done, sirrah (I assume “sirrah” rather than “madame”), although I do trust you’re not holding your breath in anticipation of the requested evidence.
It isn’t just the Right that armors itself in hatred and willingly dons ideological blinkers.
just making shit up.
Quelle surprise!
On the plus side, If Mr. Can’t Control His Temper wins, will join the Freedom Caucus, which has so little to do with the Democrats that at least he won’t be threatening to them. He’s more likely to body slam Paul Ryan or some other GOP House member, simply because the GOP has cut the Democrats out of pretty much everything. Let them deal with his violent instability.
Gosh, so you’re basically supporting the stereotype of New Jerseyans as loudmouths and boors? Is the fact that Mr. Gianforte has an Italian surname relevant here :-O ?
. . . I think.
I.e., not actually, physically taken into custody. At least that’s the gist of the local reporting I’ve heard/read.
In a long list, I think the most disgusting thing about Gianforte to me is the way he ran away from Trump like the plague in November (presumably presuming, like everyone sane, that Trump was destined to lose), but now has embraced Trump like a long-lost lover to the point of parroting his slogans (“drain the swamp”, etc.) word-for-word. He’s the poster-child for say/do anything to win. (As the audio of the incident showed about the religious-right extremism he wears on his sleeve when he thinks it will help him. Total hypocrite.)
The rethig will win. Period.