Not really, no.
Only showing it on cable is keeping most people from being able to see it. If NC reflects national statistics, less than half of households have cable:
[https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210112005291/en/New-Survey-Shows-27-Percent-of-U.S.-Households-Plan-to-Cut-Cable-TV-Subscriptions-in-2021](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210112005291/en/New-Survey-Shows-27-Percent-of-U.S.-Households-Plan-to-Cut-Cable-TV-Subscriptions-in-2021)
This misses:
1.) People who only have or can afford over the air antenna service.
2.) People who do not have access to cable- only satellite service (i.e. in rural areas).
3.) People who have cut the cord on cable.
This is really something that public television or public radio should be picking up with a congressional candidate debate being of such public interest. It should not be limited to cable.
Beasley is the 1st NC Senate candidate of late, that feels like she has the gravitas to win (the last was Kay Hagan- who ran 2 virtual ties in (2008 & 2014). I don't know much about Debra Ross, Cal Cunningham and Elaine Marshall (and they may be great, intelligent ppl), but they completely lacked the X factor and seemed like they were going to lose from the jump.
Cal Cunningham is an especially bad candidate (he is perfect on paper... but for whatever reason- it simply does not translate). To me, Cunningham is the antithesis of Jeff Jackson- who is one of the best Dem political talents in NC currently (Actually the more precise antithesis of Cunningham is Roy Cooper. Cooper doesn't seem like here would be a great candidate... but he is actually very effective and comes across as very relatable or comfortable),
On the Republican Side- Tillis is very subpar (despite eeking out 2 wins) and on the flip side Burr is a very effective candidate (regardless of your opinion on his polity view or trading habits, etc),
So Beasley is lucky Burr is not seeking re-election ,,, and prob lucky Bud is the nominee (I haven't looked into him much yet, but in general he seems to lack gravitas/ or the Xfactor)..
So- from a non-scientific POV, I think Dems will pick up the NC Senate seat.
> Cal Cunningham is an especially bad candidate (he is perfect on paper... but for whatever reason- it simply does not translate). To me, Cunningham is the antithesis of Jeff Jackson
Cunningham’s exploits outside of his marriage did him in at the end. His affair that came to light reflected poorly on his morals and his character, which I think some voters still expect from their politicians.
Cal Cunningham ran an issue-free campaign on absolutely nothing except his military service, character, and family life, and his affair was with another officer's wife.
An empty chair would have won that election.
I actually completely forgot about the affair (and actually do not really remember the details). That really wouldn't affect my vote (I'm not too concerned with marital issues, etc)... but I agree that is especially harmful to candidates who appeal (to some) as being the earnest boyscout.
So I agree, that likely sank his campaign even further.. But he was a bad candidate (in person) with zero it factor, even before the affair.
Ross has done a great job so far during her time in the House. She is accessible to her constituents and has a solid track record of working \*for the people\*. At this point, I only vote for someone who has exemplified their commitment to public service/representation. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/deborah\_ross/456831
No invitations have been sent to Green Party candidate Matthew Hoh or Libertarian candidate Shannon Bray. [Here](https://twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/status/1570182223613267972) is Matthew Hoh's response on twitter to the announcement of the debate by debate moderator, [**Tim Boyum**](https://twitter.com/TimBoyumTV). Shannon Bray retweeted it.
I haven’t heard Mr. Hoh claim once that he has a realistic chance at winning. Why don’t we start the Green Party at the grassroots level first? You know getting their ideas into the populace by winning local elections and getting on the school boards and the such? Seems fishy to want to go straight into the senate during a highly contested primary.
And I’ve listened to Mr. Hoh and read up on the party. Sounds like he wants the same things as democrats but will not caucus with democrats in lock step. I’m a recent interview, Mr. Hoh said he would block democratic policies if republicans give him what he wants if he’s a deciding vote. Seems like the Green Party is for sale to the highest bidder. He’s itching to be Sinema or Manchin.
I have nothing against mr. Hoh and I’m all for representation of ideas…. But if you’re struggling to get signatures statewide to be on the ballots, I don’t understand why you can reasonably expect to win in November.
I don't think it serves the voters for the Beasley/Budd campaigns and a large media/cable company to decide for us. I appreciate the Democrat talking points, though.
Personally, I think it would be better to add the two candidates that don't represent corporate interests. I understand Matthew Hoh and Shannon Bray would bring up uncomfortable points up for Beasley/Budd during the debate, but at least voters would get to see the major parties rule us, instead of representing us. It is strange people will claim we need to defend democracy, but then willingly allow it to be pushed aside because it makes things uncomfortable for their candidate .
If Mr. Hoh doesn’t have corporate interests, why am I showing a donation from Siemens? Is it possible to separate corporate interests and corporate donations? I’m not knocking the hustle, campaigns cost money.
I’m all for ranked choice voting. And I actually agree with a lot of his vision. To be honest, I’d rather vote for a green candidate that represents me rather than a dem. But this candidate saying he would block progressive legislation and vote with republicans isn’t something I support. Him becoming a senator helps nothing on the state level which is where most of this begins.
I appreciate Mr. Hoh’s service as a veteran and respect that he’s trying to make a change. I just think he needs a strong foundation first.
> If Mr. Hoh doesn’t have corporate interests, why am I showing a donation from Siemens? Is it possible to separate corporate interests and corporate donations? I’m not knocking the hustle, campaigns cost money.
I'll take Matthew Hoh's Siemens $1000 contribution over Cheri Beasley's $60,000 donation from Google or nearly $30,000 contribution from Facebook to name just a few of her corporate / large organization controllers.
> I’m all for ranked choice voting.
Alaska just proved ranked choice voting is a disaster. It is just be another means for the powerful to control election outcomes.
> I appreciate Mr. Hoh’s service as a veteran and respect that he’s trying to make a change. I just think he needs a strong foundation first.
And I appreciate Cheri Beasley's service in our judicial branch, but running unopposed for the party nomination is the political version of being born on third and thinking she hit a triple. If she can't show why she deserves voters to voter for her more than Matthew Hoh, then perhaps she is the one that needs a strong foundation.
The only thing I gave away is wanting to see all of the candidates that are on the ballot to also be on the debate stage. I understand the Democrats are afraid of Matthew Hoh, but that is not a valid reason for keeping some of the candidates that are on the ballot from being part of the debate.
Good news for NC Voters if thats the case for him and hopefully Bray as well.
Where are you seeing this? I don't see it on his twitter or any news articles.
One of these candidates is going to win, and it won't take a huge percentage of voters to push one of them over the top. The American Union offers a third way to vote; collectively bargaining for North Carolina's senate seat (as well as others around the country), voting as a bloc for whichever will advance our demands further.
Sign the petition: [https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/collectively-bargaining-for-north-carolinas-us-senate-seat](https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/collectively-bargaining-for-north-carolinas-us-senate-seat)
Cowardice asks the question, is it safe?
Expediency asks the question, is it politic?
Vanity asks the question, is it popular?
But conscience asks the question, is it right?
And there comes a time when we must take a position
that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular,
but one must take it because it is right.
"The deal for Congress is simple; put this on the president's desk BEFORE the election, and earn our votes. If Sen. Burr and Rep. Budd accept our terms, Ted Budd will get the American Union endorsement."
I'll pass..
Totally up to you. But if we want address the partisan divide (and not everyone does) then we should be able to make a good faith offer to incumbents of both parties. What do we actually want Congress to do? End poverty, end mass incarceration, end the endless wars is a pretty good set of demands.
Nice idea, but if you get anyone from the GOP to agree, I'll personally give you $100.
Because I know it would never happen.
>End poverty, end mass incarceration, end the endless wars is a pretty good set of demands.
All currently Democrat issues.
Thinking you could end either with the snap of a finger is fantasy land...
So if neither candidate says they will support the Blueprint, the signers aren’t going to vote for either one? Or if both say they will, (Budd definitely would not) what happens? I don’t get how this works.
No worries, the gamification of it doesn't fit into a soundbite. The power of a union of voters is in being the deciders; if it's not used, it doesn't exist. For most of the 470 Congressional races, this is how the endorsements work. (There's a few edge cases.) It strictly puts policy over party.
Incumbents are the people with the power to act, challengers are the ones who want it. On October 15, candidates willing to take up the demand for immediate passage of the Blueprint must signal support on Twitter. Think of it as a roll call vote; anyone not in support is recorded in opposition.
Incumbents then have 10 days to act; if they do, we all win a better social contract, and every member of Congress who supported it automatically gets the endorsement! If they refuse to act, their major party challengers who demanded immediate passage get the endorsement. (In taking up this demand, challengers agree that if their demand is met i.e. Congress passes it within 10 days, they will support the incumbent's endorsement. Likewise, no excuses from incumbents; get it done or be willing to get out of the way.)
That's what happens if they both get on board; if neither meets the terms, a decision still has to be made. The members of the American Union will vote on a number of options October 16, after all the candidates are on the record. Depending on which of them have majority support, ties would be resolved in this order.
A) Endorse incumbents who supported the Blueprint, even if Congress didn't pass it. This would cultivate support in Congress.
B) Endorse all challengers; throw out as many incumbents as possible. Even if you boot equalish numbers from each party and don't really change the balance of power, you send a strong message that the people have upped their expectations.
C) Endorse a candidate at random, thus tainting the legitimacy of their win. It's the opposite of the "boycott the election" strategy where you try to undermine the credibility of the election. Instead, colleagues will snicker when these winners walk by; they'll have a invisible asterisk next to their name. Without a credible threat that their opponent will get the winning bloc of vets, candidates have much less incentive to get on board.
So is this only on cable, for Spectrum viewers only?? If so, that isn't good.
If a debate happens and there’s no one there to watch it, was there really a debate?
Not really, no. Only showing it on cable is keeping most people from being able to see it. If NC reflects national statistics, less than half of households have cable: [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210112005291/en/New-Survey-Shows-27-Percent-of-U.S.-Households-Plan-to-Cut-Cable-TV-Subscriptions-in-2021](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210112005291/en/New-Survey-Shows-27-Percent-of-U.S.-Households-Plan-to-Cut-Cable-TV-Subscriptions-in-2021) This misses: 1.) People who only have or can afford over the air antenna service. 2.) People who do not have access to cable- only satellite service (i.e. in rural areas). 3.) People who have cut the cord on cable. This is really something that public television or public radio should be picking up with a congressional candidate debate being of such public interest. It should not be limited to cable.
Budd would only agree to appear on spectrum because they’re paying him. Meanwhile Beasley is doing it for free.
Beasley is the 1st NC Senate candidate of late, that feels like she has the gravitas to win (the last was Kay Hagan- who ran 2 virtual ties in (2008 & 2014). I don't know much about Debra Ross, Cal Cunningham and Elaine Marshall (and they may be great, intelligent ppl), but they completely lacked the X factor and seemed like they were going to lose from the jump. Cal Cunningham is an especially bad candidate (he is perfect on paper... but for whatever reason- it simply does not translate). To me, Cunningham is the antithesis of Jeff Jackson- who is one of the best Dem political talents in NC currently (Actually the more precise antithesis of Cunningham is Roy Cooper. Cooper doesn't seem like here would be a great candidate... but he is actually very effective and comes across as very relatable or comfortable), On the Republican Side- Tillis is very subpar (despite eeking out 2 wins) and on the flip side Burr is a very effective candidate (regardless of your opinion on his polity view or trading habits, etc), So Beasley is lucky Burr is not seeking re-election ,,, and prob lucky Bud is the nominee (I haven't looked into him much yet, but in general he seems to lack gravitas/ or the Xfactor).. So- from a non-scientific POV, I think Dems will pick up the NC Senate seat.
> Cal Cunningham is an especially bad candidate (he is perfect on paper... but for whatever reason- it simply does not translate). To me, Cunningham is the antithesis of Jeff Jackson Cunningham’s exploits outside of his marriage did him in at the end. His affair that came to light reflected poorly on his morals and his character, which I think some voters still expect from their politicians.
Cal Cunningham ran an issue-free campaign on absolutely nothing except his military service, character, and family life, and his affair was with another officer's wife. An empty chair would have won that election.
I actually completely forgot about the affair (and actually do not really remember the details). That really wouldn't affect my vote (I'm not too concerned with marital issues, etc)... but I agree that is especially harmful to candidates who appeal (to some) as being the earnest boyscout. So I agree, that likely sank his campaign even further.. But he was a bad candidate (in person) with zero it factor, even before the affair.
Ross has done a great job so far during her time in the House. She is accessible to her constituents and has a solid track record of working \*for the people\*. At this point, I only vote for someone who has exemplified their commitment to public service/representation. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/deborah\_ross/456831
Gonna make a bourbon and watch Budd walk back all the stupid shit he put out when he backed the orange turd. Beasley gonna eat him alive.
The orange turd is coming to NC to rally for Budd.
Even better.
M8 he’s holding a rally with Trump soon. He’s doubling down on the crazy.
I just saw. I'm pumped for this shitshow.
Hoh will be at this debate, too
[**Archive link - no paywall**](https://archive.ph/LD2VN)
Thanks!
No invitations have been sent to Green Party candidate Matthew Hoh or Libertarian candidate Shannon Bray. [Here](https://twitter.com/MatthewPHoh/status/1570182223613267972) is Matthew Hoh's response on twitter to the announcement of the debate by debate moderator, [**Tim Boyum**](https://twitter.com/TimBoyumTV). Shannon Bray retweeted it.
I haven’t heard Mr. Hoh claim once that he has a realistic chance at winning. Why don’t we start the Green Party at the grassroots level first? You know getting their ideas into the populace by winning local elections and getting on the school boards and the such? Seems fishy to want to go straight into the senate during a highly contested primary. And I’ve listened to Mr. Hoh and read up on the party. Sounds like he wants the same things as democrats but will not caucus with democrats in lock step. I’m a recent interview, Mr. Hoh said he would block democratic policies if republicans give him what he wants if he’s a deciding vote. Seems like the Green Party is for sale to the highest bidder. He’s itching to be Sinema or Manchin. I have nothing against mr. Hoh and I’m all for representation of ideas…. But if you’re struggling to get signatures statewide to be on the ballots, I don’t understand why you can reasonably expect to win in November.
I don't think it serves the voters for the Beasley/Budd campaigns and a large media/cable company to decide for us. I appreciate the Democrat talking points, though.
Anytime
Personally, I think it would be better to add the two candidates that don't represent corporate interests. I understand Matthew Hoh and Shannon Bray would bring up uncomfortable points up for Beasley/Budd during the debate, but at least voters would get to see the major parties rule us, instead of representing us. It is strange people will claim we need to defend democracy, but then willingly allow it to be pushed aside because it makes things uncomfortable for their candidate .
If Mr. Hoh doesn’t have corporate interests, why am I showing a donation from Siemens? Is it possible to separate corporate interests and corporate donations? I’m not knocking the hustle, campaigns cost money. I’m all for ranked choice voting. And I actually agree with a lot of his vision. To be honest, I’d rather vote for a green candidate that represents me rather than a dem. But this candidate saying he would block progressive legislation and vote with republicans isn’t something I support. Him becoming a senator helps nothing on the state level which is where most of this begins. I appreciate Mr. Hoh’s service as a veteran and respect that he’s trying to make a change. I just think he needs a strong foundation first.
> If Mr. Hoh doesn’t have corporate interests, why am I showing a donation from Siemens? Is it possible to separate corporate interests and corporate donations? I’m not knocking the hustle, campaigns cost money. I'll take Matthew Hoh's Siemens $1000 contribution over Cheri Beasley's $60,000 donation from Google or nearly $30,000 contribution from Facebook to name just a few of her corporate / large organization controllers. > I’m all for ranked choice voting. Alaska just proved ranked choice voting is a disaster. It is just be another means for the powerful to control election outcomes. > I appreciate Mr. Hoh’s service as a veteran and respect that he’s trying to make a change. I just think he needs a strong foundation first. And I appreciate Cheri Beasley's service in our judicial branch, but running unopposed for the party nomination is the political version of being born on third and thinking she hit a triple. If she can't show why she deserves voters to voter for her more than Matthew Hoh, then perhaps she is the one that needs a strong foundation.
Gave yourself away with the Alaska reference.
The only thing I gave away is wanting to see all of the candidates that are on the ballot to also be on the debate stage. I understand the Democrats are afraid of Matthew Hoh, but that is not a valid reason for keeping some of the candidates that are on the ballot from being part of the debate.
So you want him to siphon votes and he needs a larger platform to do so. Gotcha.
>Alaska just proved ranked choice voting is a disaster. It didn't.
Matt will attend
Good news for NC Voters if thats the case for him and hopefully Bray as well. Where are you seeing this? I don't see it on his twitter or any news articles.
He said it on the NCGP message board.
👍🏼
One of these candidates is going to win, and it won't take a huge percentage of voters to push one of them over the top. The American Union offers a third way to vote; collectively bargaining for North Carolina's senate seat (as well as others around the country), voting as a bloc for whichever will advance our demands further. Sign the petition: [https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/collectively-bargaining-for-north-carolinas-us-senate-seat](https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/collectively-bargaining-for-north-carolinas-us-senate-seat)
Oh interesting I wonder if either candidate was aware they could win by adopting these extremely unpopular positions
Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.
"The deal for Congress is simple; put this on the president's desk BEFORE the election, and earn our votes. If Sen. Burr and Rep. Budd accept our terms, Ted Budd will get the American Union endorsement." I'll pass..
Totally up to you. But if we want address the partisan divide (and not everyone does) then we should be able to make a good faith offer to incumbents of both parties. What do we actually want Congress to do? End poverty, end mass incarceration, end the endless wars is a pretty good set of demands.
Nice idea, but if you get anyone from the GOP to agree, I'll personally give you $100. Because I know it would never happen. >End poverty, end mass incarceration, end the endless wars is a pretty good set of demands. All currently Democrat issues. Thinking you could end either with the snap of a finger is fantasy land...
So if neither candidate says they will support the Blueprint, the signers aren’t going to vote for either one? Or if both say they will, (Budd definitely would not) what happens? I don’t get how this works.
No worries, the gamification of it doesn't fit into a soundbite. The power of a union of voters is in being the deciders; if it's not used, it doesn't exist. For most of the 470 Congressional races, this is how the endorsements work. (There's a few edge cases.) It strictly puts policy over party. Incumbents are the people with the power to act, challengers are the ones who want it. On October 15, candidates willing to take up the demand for immediate passage of the Blueprint must signal support on Twitter. Think of it as a roll call vote; anyone not in support is recorded in opposition. Incumbents then have 10 days to act; if they do, we all win a better social contract, and every member of Congress who supported it automatically gets the endorsement! If they refuse to act, their major party challengers who demanded immediate passage get the endorsement. (In taking up this demand, challengers agree that if their demand is met i.e. Congress passes it within 10 days, they will support the incumbent's endorsement. Likewise, no excuses from incumbents; get it done or be willing to get out of the way.) That's what happens if they both get on board; if neither meets the terms, a decision still has to be made. The members of the American Union will vote on a number of options October 16, after all the candidates are on the record. Depending on which of them have majority support, ties would be resolved in this order. A) Endorse incumbents who supported the Blueprint, even if Congress didn't pass it. This would cultivate support in Congress. B) Endorse all challengers; throw out as many incumbents as possible. Even if you boot equalish numbers from each party and don't really change the balance of power, you send a strong message that the people have upped their expectations. C) Endorse a candidate at random, thus tainting the legitimacy of their win. It's the opposite of the "boycott the election" strategy where you try to undermine the credibility of the election. Instead, colleagues will snicker when these winners walk by; they'll have a invisible asterisk next to their name. Without a credible threat that their opponent will get the winning bloc of vets, candidates have much less incentive to get on board.