Party | Candidate | Votes | % |
---|---|---|---|
Democratic | Hakeem Jeffries (NY 8) | 212 | 49.1% |
Republican | Jim Jordan (OH 4) | 200 | 46.3% |
Republican | Steve Scalise (LA 1) | 7 | 1.6% |
Republican | Kevin McCarthy (CA 20) | 6 | 1.4% |
Republican | Lee Zeldin | 3 | 0.7% |
Republican | Tom Cole (OK 4) | 1 | 0.2% |
Republican | Tom Emmer (MN 6) | 1 | 0.2% |
Republican | Mike Garcia (CA 27) | 1 | 0.2% |
Republican | Thomas Massie (KY 4) | 1 | 0.2% |
Note: official party nominees in bold.
Bad take. We aren’t covering for their inability to govern. We are exploiting their inability to govern by forcing them to accept a candidate they don’t really want.
And if they aren’t willing to accept that candidate, we keep comparing their horseshit speaker to the upstanding hero we could have had.
6 Republicans who don’t want to reject a war hero either divide the party, or force it to back that reasonable candidate.
Instead, we’re going to get someone an inch closer to Matt Gaetz. Fuck. That. Shit.
I get the impulse, but the difference between a democrat (Jeffries), and someone nominated by a democrat (MOH recipient/etc) to the GOP is minimal if not non-existent.
If you’re talking about Republican politicians, I would agree. If you’re talking about Republican voters, I strongly disagree. The reverence our current and former soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have for MoH recipients is stronger than the distrust we have for the major parties. I don’t see Republican politicians being able to spin war heroes into political hacks.