A few impressions from this release: now when we have two people from the same party running for office (the definition of a primary) that results in a fractured party? And secondly it indicates "something bigger going on" but no explanation to substantiate that claim? And thirdly, when two candidates engage in accusations it is now deemed crazy, not the state of politics today? One would think the Republicans are falling apart and Dems are trouble-free? Some shade being thrown, I think.
A) I can tell you from what I am hearing from right-wing sources, there is a pretty big fracture, at least on this race. I can't say much more without revealing my sources (and if I did, I wouldn't have sources). I can say that there seems to be split in philosophy in how those county positions should be run. But whether that will have any long-term impact remains to be seen.
B) I've covered local politics for the last two decades, and this is the most openly vitriolic I've seen a county elected race. Most of the time there isn't even a contest. I almost forgot to check if there was a primary because they're usually so ho-hum.
C) You can't be serious about "the Republicans are falling apart and Dems are trouble-free?" You've read my stories - I go where the story is, regardless of party. Am I really to find something to say about some random, unrelated Dem every time I write something about a Republican? I was accused of throwing shade on the Dems when I wrote about Mayor Katie's campaign stumbles or the CFA issue. Funny, I don't recall you telling me I was painting a picture of everything being rosy on the Republican side and "throwing shade" when I wrote those stories.
Fair enough on the mayoral race. But I think the Republican party was fairly unified/non-contentious about the candidate (not much to report?). I was at Republican party meetings when candidates introduced themselves. It was not vitriolic then but perhaps developed that way as the races progressed. There are some very troubling aspects to past behavior of one of the county clerk candidates; known to those who experienced it first hand (my sources). But the primary is over now; we will find out their true colors as their terms progress. I see elections in general, not just local, as being far more contentious among the voters themselves but we are witnessing the death of the uniparty at all levels. It is unsettling but necessary. The Dems are self imploding while they commit all of the threats they accused others of and the RINO's are being strategically removed, replaced by what we can see with the benefit of hindsight, August 23rd, a Trump-Kennedy alliance as unification. The old guard of either party is showing their biases; the future is really a coalition of those who understand the "of, by, and for the people" design. Less government. The best of both worlds for a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We use a democratic form of citizen representation that has devolved into bureaucracy, money laundering, non-stop wars, and collectivism. The majority is rejecting that. It may be longer to see that in our (contentious) local elections. That may be the "split in philosophy" you see; only you know if that is what you gleaned from your source. We are fortunate enough to be witnessing the "rebirth" of our nation; returning to our founders' original vision and removing the waste and destruction created by both sides of the aisle. Birth can be painful but miraculously renewing and energizing; not always easy but necessary.
A few impressions from this release: now when we have two people from the same party running for office (the definition of a primary) that results in a fractured party? And secondly it indicates "something bigger going on" but no explanation to substantiate that claim? And thirdly, when two candidates engage in accusations it is now deemed crazy, not the state of politics today? One would think the Republicans are falling apart and Dems are trouble-free? Some shade being thrown, I think.
A) I can tell you from what I am hearing from right-wing sources, there is a pretty big fracture, at least on this race. I can't say much more without revealing my sources (and if I did, I wouldn't have sources). I can say that there seems to be split in philosophy in how those county positions should be run. But whether that will have any long-term impact remains to be seen.
B) I've covered local politics for the last two decades, and this is the most openly vitriolic I've seen a county elected race. Most of the time there isn't even a contest. I almost forgot to check if there was a primary because they're usually so ho-hum.
C) You can't be serious about "the Republicans are falling apart and Dems are trouble-free?" You've read my stories - I go where the story is, regardless of party. Am I really to find something to say about some random, unrelated Dem every time I write something about a Republican? I was accused of throwing shade on the Dems when I wrote about Mayor Katie's campaign stumbles or the CFA issue. Funny, I don't recall you telling me I was painting a picture of everything being rosy on the Republican side and "throwing shade" when I wrote those stories.
Fair enough on the mayoral race. But I think the Republican party was fairly unified/non-contentious about the candidate (not much to report?). I was at Republican party meetings when candidates introduced themselves. It was not vitriolic then but perhaps developed that way as the races progressed. There are some very troubling aspects to past behavior of one of the county clerk candidates; known to those who experienced it first hand (my sources). But the primary is over now; we will find out their true colors as their terms progress. I see elections in general, not just local, as being far more contentious among the voters themselves but we are witnessing the death of the uniparty at all levels. It is unsettling but necessary. The Dems are self imploding while they commit all of the threats they accused others of and the RINO's are being strategically removed, replaced by what we can see with the benefit of hindsight, August 23rd, a Trump-Kennedy alliance as unification. The old guard of either party is showing their biases; the future is really a coalition of those who understand the "of, by, and for the people" design. Less government. The best of both worlds for a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We use a democratic form of citizen representation that has devolved into bureaucracy, money laundering, non-stop wars, and collectivism. The majority is rejecting that. It may be longer to see that in our (contentious) local elections. That may be the "split in philosophy" you see; only you know if that is what you gleaned from your source. We are fortunate enough to be witnessing the "rebirth" of our nation; returning to our founders' original vision and removing the waste and destruction created by both sides of the aisle. Birth can be painful but miraculously renewing and energizing; not always easy but necessary.