4 ms·

Surprised his opponent or his party didn't do some vetting. the gop only has a very small majority. If this came out before, it could have cost them. Seems like

Surprised his opponent or his party didn't do some vetting. the gop only has a very small majority. If this came out before, it could have cost them. Seems like he lied about everything on his background.

eclipticplane 4y ago
The New York Democrats basically checked out for this election. Had they not, the Democrats may have retained control.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
analog31 4y ago
They did. It's called opposition research. Every well run campaign or major party does it. They knew.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
The party that opposed him ran a literal dead person for a house seat in another state, and the dead guy won. It wasn't even unusual - several dead people have won elections. I'm pretty sure I saw a poll that showed that most voters didn't know he was dead. I doubt it would have affected him much if his fraud were exposed.
- timmytokyo 4y ago
  Not sure why this is being downvoted. In 2000 Mel Carnahan won a US Senate seat in Missouri despite having died 3 weeks earlier in a plane crash. His wife Jean was appointed by the governer to serve until the next special election could be held.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    You make it sound like "Weekend at Bernie's" shenanigans but the reality of life is sometimes the candidate dies too close to the election to change the ballots. It's not that weird, it's not intentional, and Mel Carnahan wasn't some fictitious unknown, he was the governor of the state.
  - jmull 4y ago
    > Not sure why this is being downvoted I can only guess, but it's ambiguous, irrelevant and needlessly casts this as a partisan issue.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- HWR_14 4y ago
  I have no idea why voting for a dead person would be controversial or bad. Voting for a conman is clearly bad.
- davidw 4y ago
  This was a close race, not some race in, say, rural Wyoming or San Francisco where one party is essentially the only one that counts.
sangnoir 4y ago
> Surprised his opponent or his party didn't do some vetting. Implicit in your statement is that oppo research is at least as good as the journalism machinery. Perhaps the answer to your question is that they did some vetting, but are nowhere near as effective as the press. It's fashionable to dunk on the press (or "mainstream media") lately, but perhaps they have a useful function whose effectiveness does not wax and wain with the election seasons.

eclipticplane 4y ago

The New York Democrats basically checked out for this election. Had they not, the Democrats may have retained control.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

analog31 4y ago

They did. It's called opposition research. Every well run campaign or major party does it. They knew.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

The party that opposed him ran a literal dead person for a house seat in another state, and the dead guy won. It wasn't even unusual - several dead people have won elections. I'm pretty sure I saw a poll that showed that most voters didn't know he was dead. I doubt it would have affected him much if his fraud were exposed.

timmytokyo 4y ago
Not sure why this is being downvoted. In 2000 Mel Carnahan won a US Senate seat in Missouri despite having died 3 weeks earlier in a plane crash. His wife Jean was appointed by the governer to serve until the next special election could be held.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  You make it sound like "Weekend at Bernie's" shenanigans but the reality of life is sometimes the candidate dies too close to the election to change the ballots. It's not that weird, it's not intentional, and Mel Carnahan wasn't some fictitious unknown, he was the governor of the state.
- jmull 4y ago
  > Not sure why this is being downvoted I can only guess, but it's ambiguous, irrelevant and needlessly casts this as a partisan issue.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
HWR_14 4y ago
I have no idea why voting for a dead person would be controversial or bad. Voting for a conman is clearly bad.
davidw 4y ago
This was a close race, not some race in, say, rural Wyoming or San Francisco where one party is essentially the only one that counts.

sangnoir 4y ago

> Surprised his opponent or his party didn't do some vetting. Implicit in your statement is that oppo research is at least as good as the journalism machinery. Perhaps the answer to your question is that they did some vetting, but are nowhere near as effective as the press. It's fashionable to dunk on the press (or "mainstream media") lately, but perhaps they have a useful function whose effectiveness does not wax and wain with the election seasons.