Posted on 10/17/2017 7:37:27 AM PDT by Mariner
Look at Pennsylvania, for example. One of the most astonishing things we saw in 2016 is that President Trump managed to win that state even while a moderate Republican like Pat Toomey also won (they appealed to two very different voter groups). I don't see any situation where I'd be happy with Toomey losing that election, even if I would have preferred someone else running in his place.
Thanks for warning us, liberals!
We are sure you have our best interests in mind.
Free Republic has its share of squishes i.e. Alberta child for one.
That’s not a risk worth taking. I have been a strong Trump supporter since last year, but I’m also aware that he might very well sign almost any piece of legislation that a Democrat-controlled Congress puts in front of him.
The Hill? Really?????
Anyone motivated enough to vote out an incumbent in the primary is going to be equally motives (if not more) to ensure the new GOP gets in.
Having a smart, practical fellow like Bannon leading the effort makes that a very small risk.
If there was no ‘leader’ then that risk would be worrying.
Right. But I would much rather have a Senate that gets nothing done than a Senate that gets bad things done.
Hey squish quit your Rovian fear mongering. FUAC.
John McCain and his 500 years as a U.S. Senator don't support that statement.
And un-pure Nationalist Republican could win PA...and MI and WI.
It’s the Republican insistence on supporting the Republican Orthodoxy on Trade and Immigration that has killed the GOP in those states...NOT a pro-American, Nationalist agenda.
Toomey is a fluke and I’m surprised he won. It musta been Trump’s coattails, not his own policy positions.
“but I’m also aware that he might very well sign almost any piece of legislation that a Democrat-controlled Congress puts in front of him.”
He will sign any legislation that he believes furthers the interests of the American People...FIRST.
That will, in some cases, be contrary to what Republicans like yourself want.
Most of us are “squishes” on one issue or another. We need SOME push-back here at FR to keep us sharp. Also, traditional types and libertarian types have sharply different definitions of “squishes”.
However, all of us agree that the McConnells and the Flakes and the McCains are squishes across the board, and worse, are firm ONLY on keeping the strong and the principled from doing what needs to be done. Their god is their belly.
I believe every GOPe senator in Washington today who was elected in 2016 won his state by a larger margin than Trump did.
I thinks Alberta’s child is really Karl Rove.
If Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi passed a single-payer health bill on his desk, I’d say the odds are much greater than 50% that he’d sign it. I’d even be willing to bet a lot of money on it.
“Most of us are “squishes” on one issue or another.”
Astute.
I confess to being a squish on homo marriage (I just don’t care) and pot (again, I don’t care other than the WOD builds the police state).
There are others here who have those as the principal issues, and only reasons for voting.
Oh shut up. Nobody wants to read postings from a traitor.
Toomey is not a fluke, and it absolutely was not Trump’s coattails that won for him. He outperformed Trump among suburban Republicans, while Trump won a lot of votes among Democrats in rural Pennsylvania who didn’t vote for Toomey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.