Quote:

---

Georgia's Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan said this week that he did not vote for GOP Senate candidate Herschel Walker in the runoff election against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga.
Duncan told CNN in an interview Wednesday that he also did not vote for Warnock, explaining he stood in line to vote for an hour but could not bring himself to pull the lever for either candidate.
"I showed up to vote this morning," Duncan said. "I was one of those folks who got in line and spent about an hour waiting, and it was the most disappointing ballot I've ever stared at in my entire life since I started voting."

"I had two candidates that I just couldn't find anything that made sense for me to put my vote behind, and so I walked out of that ballot box showing up to vote but not voting for either one of them," he added.

---

Seriously?? Waited in line an hour and didn't vote??? Setting a great example. Wow... Circular firing squad continues.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-senate-race-republican-lieutenant-governor-says-he-did-not-vote-herschel-walker

So concerned. So moderate.

Considering I do not think Herschel had a strong primary challenger, I am not sure what the Lt. Gov's gripes can be about Herschel. There was not a better primary candidate alternative (my guess), and Warnock is clearly significantly further from the R platform than Herschel is even though Herschel has his flaws.

I'm just not seeing the angle for abstaining if Herschel aligns with your beliefs far more than Warnock. Abstaining would only make sense if there was a better alternate in the primary, if your beliefs are somewhere between both candidates, or if he never was an R to begin with, and in the latter two cases he would just be a RINO and outed himself.

Is their lt gov an ag from Georgia?

But it's Trump fault for things - yea right

Republicans suck

The old he didnt earn my vote bull*****

Yes, in fact, he did. He won the primary and therefore earned your vote.

It's how it should work.

For example, I've never voted in a primary.

I will do so this year for Ron DeSantis. Should he lose, and if Trump were to win, I will vote Trump, even though I think it's a really bad plan to win the general.

See, I will vote for someone other than my preferred candidate because that person won the primary. Easy.

Geoff Duncan is a well known never-Trumper so no surprise he is trying to torpedo Walker.

The Uni Party!

Agthatbuilds said:

---

The Ole he didnt earn my vote bull*****

Ye, in fact, he did. He won the primary and therefore earned your vote.

It's how it should work.

For example, I've never voted in a primary.

I will do so this year for Ron DeSantis. Should he lose, and if Trump were to win, I will vote Trump, even though I think it's a really bad plan to win the general.

See, I will vote for someone other than my preferred candidate because that person won the primary. Easy.

---

That is too simplistic and is the reason why the establishment is growing with each passing election cycle.
A candidate that has proven to be swamp and not follow through with platform promises would not have earned a vote just because they won the primary.

Maybe my trust is too hard to earn, but I do not trust the R or D parties to put forth the best candidates for us to choose from (see McConnell withholding funding from certain candidates as an example). Often times the better candidate does not win because the party supports the establisment opponent AND the general populace is too dumb to know that their voting habits is creating the problem they are trying to avoid.

This does not apply in Herschel's cases since he did not have a strong primary challenger nor does he have a history of being establishment nor not following through with the R platform promises. He's new and from what we have seen so far is a viable R candidate. Thus abstaining means the person voting is either setting too high of standards or was never an R in the first place.

The Trump vs DeSantis example is poor because both are great candidates thus there should not be an issue voting for either regardless of who wins the primary.

He pulled up into the parking lot and left, doubt he sat there and pondered the meaning of life for an hour.

M-K-TAG said:

---

Quote:

---

Georgia's Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan said this week that he did not vote for GOP Senate candidate Herschel Walker in the runoff election against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga.
Duncan told CNN in an interview Wednesday that he also did not vote for Warnock, explaining he stood in line to vote for an hour but could not bring himself to pull the lever for either candidate.
"I showed up to vote this morning," Duncan said. "I was one of those folks who got in line and spent about an hour waiting, and it was the most disappointing ballot I've ever stared at in my entire life since I started voting."

"I had two candidates that I just couldn't find anything that made sense for me to put my vote behind, and so I walked out of that ballot box showing up to vote but not voting for either one of them," he added.

---

Seriously?? Waited in line an hour and didn't vote??? Setting a great example. Wow... Circular firing squad continues.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-senate-race-republican-lieutenant-governor-says-he-did-not-vote-herschel-walker

---

This is a perfect example of how the establishment would rather take their orders from their bosses than the will of hte people. Republican voters would vastly prefer an R victory over any D, but establishment R's would rather a D win if his handlers tell him that's the acceptable outcome.

Trump is the only candidate that has no handlers. Mitch Mcconnell had a multi-million dollar war chest that he withhelp from several key republican candidates, because they were the voice of the people instead of the voice of the establishment.

And yet, on the other side the Dems happily voted for Fetterman.

He's lying. He voted for Warnock

Street Fighter said:

---

He pulled up into the parking lot and left, doubt he sat there and pondered the meaning of life for an hour.

---

Yeah unless he's trying to convince us all that he's a complete moron, he made that up

Tea Party said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

The Ole he didnt earn my vote bull*****

Ye, in fact, he did. He won the primary and therefore earned your vote.

It's how it should work.

For example, I've never voted in a primary.

I will do so this year for Ron DeSantis. Should he lose, and if Trump were to win, I will vote Trump, even though I think it's a really bad plan to win the general.

See, I will vote for someone other than my preferred candidate because that person won the primary. Easy.

---

That is too simplistic and is the reason why the establishment is growing with each passing election cycle.
A candidate that has proven to be swamp and not follow through with platform promises would not have earned a vote just because they won the primary.

Maybe my trust is too hard to earn, but I do not trust the R or D parties to put forth the best candidates for us to choose from (see McConnell withholding funding from certain candidates as an example). Often times the better candidate does not win because the party supports the establisment opponent AND the general populace is too dumb to know that their voting habits is creating the problem they are trying to avoid.

This does not apply in Herschel's cases since he did not have a strong primary challenger nor does he have a history of being establishment nor not following through with the R platform promises. He's new and from what we have seen so far is a viable R candidate. Thus abstaining means the person voting is either setting too high of standards or was never an R in the first place.

The Trump vs DeSantis example is poor because both are great candidates thus there should not be an issue voting for either regardless of who wins the primary.

---

Yet, all the non establishment candidates won their primary and lost the general. Lake, masters, Oz, mastriano, and so on.

The time to fight for change is in the primary. Once a primary winner is declared, people of that political persuasion should vote for the primary winner.

If you choose to abstain because the winner of your primary isn't _____ enough for you, you are voting for your own demise. Kick a field goal and extend the game or let the other side make laws that will guarantee you'll never get your preferred candidate elected.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

The Ole he didnt earn my vote bull*****

Ye, in fact, he did. He won the primary and therefore earned your vote.

It's how it should work.

For example, I've never voted in a primary.

I will do so this year for Ron DeSantis. Should he lose, and if Trump were to win, I will vote Trump, even though I think it's a really bad plan to win the general.

See, I will vote for someone other than my preferred candidate because that person won the primary. Easy.

---

That is too simplistic and is the reason why the establishment is growing with each passing election cycle.
A candidate that has proven to be swamp and not follow through with platform promises would not have earned a vote just because they won the primary.

Maybe my trust is too hard to earn, but I do not trust the R or D parties to put forth the best candidates for us to choose from (see McConnell withholding funding from certain candidates as an example). Often times the better candidate does not win because the party supports the establisment opponent AND the general populace is too dumb to know that their voting habits is creating the problem they are trying to avoid.

This does not apply in Herschel's cases since he did not have a strong primary challenger nor does he have a history of being establishment nor not following through with the R platform promises. He's new and from what we have seen so far is a viable R candidate. Thus abstaining means the person voting is either setting too high of standards or was never an R in the first place.

The Trump vs DeSantis example is poor because both are great candidates thus there should not be an issue voting for either regardless of who wins the primary.

---

Yet, all the non establishment candidates won their primary and lost the general. Lake, masters, Oz, mastriano, and so on.

The time to fight for change is in the primary. Once a primary winner is declared, people of that political persuasion should vote for the primary winner.

If you choose to abstain because the winner of your primary isn't _____ enough for you, you are voting for your own demise. Kick a field goal and extend the game or let the other side make laws that will guarantee you'll never get your preferred candidate elected.

---

To be fair, If establishment R's vote for non-establishment R's, they are also voting for their own demise. They know this. It just seems the people haven't picked up on it enough yet. Establishment R's only have their own best interests in mind. And those interests are lining their own pockets from corrupt donors. Those donors are the real folks in charge.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

The Ole he didnt earn my vote bull*****

Ye, in fact, he did. He won the primary and therefore earned your vote.

It's how it should work.

For example, I've never voted in a primary.

I will do so this year for Ron DeSantis. Should he lose, and if Trump were to win, I will vote Trump, even though I think it's a really bad plan to win the general.

See, I will vote for someone other than my preferred candidate because that person won the primary. Easy.

---

That is too simplistic and is the reason why the establishment is growing with each passing election cycle.
A candidate that has proven to be swamp and not follow through with platform promises would not have earned a vote just because they won the primary.

Maybe my trust is too hard to earn, but I do not trust the R or D parties to put forth the best candidates for us to choose from (see McConnell withholding funding from certain candidates as an example). Often times the better candidate does not win because the party supports the establisment opponent AND the general populace is too dumb to know that their voting habits is creating the problem they are trying to avoid.

This does not apply in Herschel's cases since he did not have a strong primary challenger nor does he have a history of being establishment nor not following through with the R platform promises. He's new and from what we have seen so far is a viable R candidate. Thus abstaining means the person voting is either setting too high of standards or was never an R in the first place.

The Trump vs DeSantis example is poor because both are great candidates thus there should not be an issue voting for either regardless of who wins the primary.

---

Yet, all the non establishment candidates won their primary and lost the general. Lake, masters, Oz, mastriano, and so on.

The time to fight for change is in the primary. Once a primary winner is declared, people of that political persuasion should vote for the primary winner.

If you choose to abstain because the winner of your primary isn't _____ enough for you, you are voting for your own demise. Kick a field goal and extend the game or let the other side make laws that will guarantee you'll never get your preferred candidate elected.

---

Not to sound harsh, but you are opining that people should vote for who you like even if they dont like them?
I am saying people should only vote for who they like or can tolerate, and if they dont vote for someone then it means they either were never really aligned with that candidate's or parties platform or they are too idiotic to see that a non establishment candidate is a good alternative to their establishment candidate that lost in the primary.

I think we are saying the same thing, just differing on whether voting for an establishment candidate in the general is the appropriate course of action provided there were better alternatives in the primary, though that does not apply in Herschel's case and the Lt. Gov either is a part of the swamp or he is closer to Libertatian than R/D. My guess is he is closer to swamp.

That's true as well.

It's the general problem with govt. Most govt agencies should be working to put themselves out of business or to at least be working to make themselves as little as possible. Yet, they know that they'll lose their jobs and power should they accomplish their goals.

So, they dont.

Yes, a person should vote for the primary winner of their party even if they don't like them.


Example- me voting for Trump in the general should he win the 2024 primary.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Yes, a person should vote for the primary winner of their party even if they don't like them.


Example- me voting for Trump in the general should he win the 2024 primary.

---

Well, you should vote for Trump in the general because he is a good candidate even though he spends like a madman, but Congress can fix that if they choose to. So I'm not sure how the Trump example is applicable here regarding Herschel who also is not an establishment candidate....

Agree to disagree.

I prefer people to vote their conscience in the general because I have seen how corrupt the two party system is and how R/D work together for their parties benefits rather than for the people's benefit. I will never understand how people can put so much trust in the R and D elites to help us get the best candidates when they clearly are doing everything in their power to do the opposite.

If you keep playing the game that the R and D parties set forth for you, the problem will never get fixed. The only way to get ahead is to reign in the corruption that the R and D parties have and give more power back to the people rather than the gov.

Congrats on kicking field goals, but on defense 10 of the 11 refuse to tackle the ball carrier and they give up touchdowns nearly every drive.....

Waiting for the usual suspects to show up and start goaltending.

GOPe=Dems

It's applicable because I don't like Trump, regardless of how you view him

Just as the Georgia ltgov doesn't like walker.

I'll further state you'll never change the system from the outside. Your own name, Tea party, is somewhat ironic on this. The tea party was the closest thing in the last 25 years to upsetting the system and nothing changed.

You're going to have to figure out a way to disrupt the system from its own rules. Whether that's through the scotus or courts or through some yet to be determined way.

Until you've figured that out, not voting for Republicans primary winners (in our case), will only make the changes you seek that much more difficult.

You may be holier than the lot of us, but it ain't helping your interests.

Republicans grow their voter base by growing the middle class. Democrats grow their voter base by shrinking the middle class. As corrupt and negligent as both parties are - political self preservation will produce divergent behaviors, and keeping Democrats (arsonists & wreckers) from power is of primary importance to any who believe in the preservation of the American Dream.

Virtue signaling fool. Keep your damn mouth shut. Bigger issues are at stake than a dewshy self serving attempt to appease everyone by claiming neutrality and frustration at the choices.

In before Big Rob SA spouts off.

I just don't see how these guys can't understand they are voting for a vote against Schumer and the democrat agenda and not for a person.

Teslag said:

---

I just don't see how these guys can't understand they are voting for a vote against Schumer and the democrat agenda and not for a person.

---

muuuh principles that no one cares about

Tea Party said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Yes, a person should vote for the primary winner of their party even if they don't like them.


Example- me voting for Trump in the general should he win the 2024 primary.

---

I prefer people to vote their conscience in the general because I have seen how corrupt the two party system is and how R/D work together for their parties benefits rather than for the people's benefit.

---

It's not voting with conscience, it's emotions along the lines of a tantrum because they didn't get their way.

M-K-TAG said:

---

Quote:

---

Georgia's Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan said this week that he did not vote for GOP Senate candidate Herschel Walker in the runoff election against incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga.
Duncan told CNN in an interview Wednesday that he also did not vote for Warnock, explaining he stood in line to vote for an hour but could not bring himself to pull the lever for either candidate.
"I showed up to vote this morning," Duncan said. "I was one of those folks who got in line and spent about an hour waiting, and it was the most disappointing ballot I've ever stared at in my entire life since I started voting."

"I had two candidates that I just couldn't find anything that made sense for me to put my vote behind, and so I walked out of that ballot box showing up to vote but not voting for either one of them," he added.

---

Seriously?? Waited in line an hour and didn't vote??? Setting a great example. Wow... Circular firing squad continues.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-senate-race-republican-lieutenant-governor-says-he-did-not-vote-herschel-walker

---

What an idiot

I'd respect him more if he just never got in line and
Waited. He wasted everyone's time

Agthatbuilds said:

---

It's applicable because I don't like Trump, regardless of how you view him

Just as the Georgia ltgov doesn't like walker.

I'll further state you'll never change the system from the outside. Your own name, Tea party, is somewhat ironic on this. The tea party was the closest thing in the last 25 years to upsetting the system and nothing changed.

You're going to have to figure out a way to disrupt the system from its own rules. Whether that's through the scotus or courts or through some yet to be determined way.

Until you've figured that out, not voting for Republicans primary winners (in our case), will only make the changes you seek that much more difficult.

---

I think we're coming full circle here and have a lot more in common than we realize.
We agree both Trump and Herschel are not establishment types.
We agree both are worthy of a vote in the general due to their platform aligning relatively close with our beliefs despite their flaws.
We disagree that any R candidate deserves our vote in the general because I say some R candidates are unworthy swamp trash but you say swamp trash is better than a D and we can kick the swamp trash out next cycle.

If the Lt Gov thinks Herschel is not establishment and could upset the grasp on power the establishment has, then the Lt Gov is swamp trash.

If the Lt Gov is abstaining because he thinks Herschel is a terrible candidate and there was better options in the primary then that is understandable though I highly doubt this is his reasoning. Also, Herschel is still a decent enough candidate that is worth a vote regardless if a perfect candidate was there in the primary.

I think the Lt Gov is swamp trash based on his action here and OP is right the establishment Rs are shooting themselves in the foot. Hopefully that means more people see the corruption and start supporting non establishment types instead of establishment types. Take the R party back essentially.

I'm going to ignore the Tea Party tangent because that is a whole different topic, but applicable if we want to divert this thread that direction.

He probably didn't want to vote for a murderer.

Geoff Duncan = drama queen.

Htownag11 said:

---

So concerned. So moderate.

---

at least he's honest, what an abysmal candidate.

MostlyHarmless said:

---

And yet, on the other side the Dems happily voted for Fetterman.

---

Fetterman and Walker are not even close to the same in terms of their negatives. If you think Fetterman is brain dead for example, remember Walker didn't know who the LT Governor was when asked about him a couple weeks before election. Meanwhile he has all that other baggage - mental illness he's confirmed and allegations of spousal abuse, child abandonment, and even abortion.