There has been a lot ofThis is one of those cases where (I believe) people of good conscience can and will disagree. I know there are people who will abstain completely and people who will say I can't vote for [insert name here] .inkpixels spilled over the Scott/Nelson choice by fellow Florida bloggers. It's one of those classic instances of there not being a good choice and I'm not sure I remember a time when the choice in an election included someone I thought was really good, just the lesser of two evils. In this case, again, it's like digging in the cat box for the cleanest turd.
I've left this choice running in the background of my mind, like a background processor in your computer, and periodically asked myself if anything makes sense or stands out. A dim concept has emerged from the fog.
Similar to the "cleanest turd" analogy, the thought is "which one is more harmful?" I have to come down that Nelson is more harmful. Allow me to explain a minute.
Rick Scott damaged us badly as the CEO of Florida and the de facto head of the Stupid Party of Florida. If he goes to the Senate, Scott goes from being CEO (as he's been for most of his adult life) to being the lowest man on the totem pole. He'll just be one of a hundred in the world's most overpaid debating club. He has no power over us. He'll be one of the most junior members and therefore essentially powerless. He can propose any stupid law he wants, and Turtle Boy just has to ignore him. If Scott proposes things that the majority opposes, he gets nothing. I frankly don't know he can adjust his ego from being almost all-powerful, to being the 100th most powerful person in the senate (or even the 90th most important).
Bill Nelson has been in that sort of check since the GOP took the senate back the latest time. It's why there's a prevailing opinion that we can work around him. We can work around him because the situation has him powerless. I see Nelson as being potentially more damaging. He has a lot of seniority, which brings power in the arcane world of the senate. He has been a reliable vote for Chuckie Schumer. IF the stupid party retains control of the senate, or expands control, and Nelson wins, he will remain in check. If Nelson wins and the legendary "blue wave" happens, giving the majority to the Evil party, he can do more damage.
Nelson, by the way, screwed over US ham radio operators in a way analogous to how Scott screwed over Florida gun owners, by refusing to vote for a pro-amateur radio bill because it threatened home owners' associations (which I see as intrusive government; Nelson's home field). Which means both of them have screwed me.
...Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has been the lead obstructionist during several stages of efforts to enact the Amateur Radio Parity Act, which has passed the US House of Representatives four times. Lisenco further added that that Nelson’s opposition makes no sense as Florida desperately needs effective Amateur Radio disaster communications during hurricanes, and hurricane season is rapidly approaching.No senator can do the damage that the CEO of a state and party boss can do, though.
Neither one is pro-gun. If the Senate stays "red" and decides it's going to pass national reciprocity or something for gun owners, Scott would vote for it to stay in the good graces of the party; Nelson would vote against it for the very same reason. If the senate turns "blue" and decides it's going to ban all the things, Nelson will vote for it and Scott will vote against it. Not for us but to stay in the good graces of the party. Nelson is absolutely a big government guy while Scott's tenure in the capital shows he's not. Neither is likely to be influenced by "write your senator" campaigns, unless they see a much bigger picture than just a handful of riled up constituents.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I know some people who will abstain (or have). I know some people who held their nose and voted one way of the other. I'm just sharing my thinking in the hopes it might be helpful to someone else.
I abstained for one big reason: If Republicans figure that they can screw gun owners, and we will still vote for them, the wants of gun owners become irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteI've thought about about that for literally days at a time. Probably solid weeks at a time.
DeleteI can't get past one point. There's no information feedback path.
There's no way for them to know why any voter in the population either voted for them or didn't. They have no way of knowing if you liked Scott, hated him, or if you loved Scott to death but you were in a car accident on the way to vote. The best they can do is guess at populations and that's probably all they care about. There will be consultants and professional campaign advisors telling them everything from "you didn't run enough attack ads" to "you didn't pander to the (pick minority group) enough", but they'll probably say, "you didn't spend enough money" because (1) it's easy, and (2) it benefits the consultants and advisors.
The only feedback they get is who won and who lost the election. Maybe there will be focus groups and surveys after the election, but those don't tie together the people and how they voted.
If you get a questionnaire and get asked reasons, that's one thing; otherwise there's simply no way for them to know why they won or didn't win unless they go ask. Do you think they're going to ask you or Marion Hammer or someone they believe is representing millions of people? Who gets the sit down meeting with the campaign advisors and consultants?
I say if you want to affect the party views, your best chance is to get involved in the local party. I have a friend whose wife is very involved in the local party. He's told me over the years that he has gotten the chance to talk with very high level players at various party meetings. That's your best chance to affect them as an individual.
To me, this is just another election where we get two bad candidates and all we can do is pick the less disgusting one.
Please, for the love of God, stop calling Mitch McConnell a turtle. It's ignorant and disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteHe's clearly a tortoise, because turtles live in the water. Basic taxonomy.
"Senator" McConnell is clearly a Post Turtle. In fact, he is the textbook definition for same.
DeleteIt is also worth noting that "Little Marco" prefers Billy. So go ahead and take your orders from the Shrub swill, if that's what you want.
Please, for the love of God, stop calling Mitch McConnell a turtle. It's ignorant and disrespectful.
DeleteHe's clearly a tortoise, because turtles live in the water. Basic taxonomy.
I thought this was the best line of the day.
Rest assured I didn't mean to insult turtles.
Do you think that as senator, Scott would "Bork" President Trump's nominees to the federal courts? At all levels, not just the Supremes? How about Billy? Is that not worth a vote?
ReplyDeleteNow Mittens, on the other hand, will be glad to "Bork" anyone who isn't to the left of RBG. But unless you're Utahan, you can't touch that. But you CAN thank the Koch-sucking Rove Republican swill and their Chamber of Commerce buddies.
Do you think that as senator, Scott would "Bork" President Trump's nominees to the federal courts? At all levels, not just the Supremes? How about Billy?
DeleteGood point. I don't think Scott would. There's no precedent either way, but I can't see him doing it. He's done some really amateurish things as governor, but nothing that ridiculous.