Why is Bob Stefanowski even running

Submitted by pinktwillshirt t3_y8xayt in Connecticut

He's like the McCain of the Connecticut GOP.

Does he not know when to take an L and maybe there is someone else who can put up a challenge to Lamont - who is not too shabby by the way. He's like the Tim Caine of the Hillary Clinton team - no matter how much you can narrate about how crooked Hillary is, you can always agree Tim is a nice guy.

PS: I'm a registered democrat, but I'm truly independent. The first time I voted it punched it for Jill Stein. I did vote for Biden (the horror!)

40

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Wyndeward t1_it2b4z0 wrote

That is an unfair and unfortunate comparison... to John McCain.

How can anyone be against Bob Stefanowski when he doesn't stand for anything? John McCain certainly had his flaws, but he a) stood for something and b) had a compelling life's story. Bob has neither.

155

mkt853 t1_it2d199 wrote

You mean to tell me a life of grifting poor people with payday loans isn't as compelling as someone that served in the military and was captured as a POW?

77

Wyndeward t1_it2he64 wrote

It might compel me to vote against him, but that is about it.

Bob Stefanowski and, to a lesser extent, Ned Lamont are symptoms of a larger problem we have to face as a nation.

Seriously, we have taken a system intended for citizen legislators and permitted it to morph into a "jobs program" for the rich and incompetent. The overwhelming majority of legislators are a) rich (even if they didn't start that way) and b) lawyers who write laws for other lawyers to benefit from. The World War II generation was perhaps the last "great" generation... starting with "pre-boomers," (the generation born before WW2, but too young to actually serve), things have slid off the plate at an ever-increasing rate, with politicians beholding more to party than the constituencies they are supposed to be representing. The pre-boomers *should* have known and done better. The boomers, whose lives were too soft because their parents had it so hard, at least had the excuse of ignorance in their defense. With each successive generation, things have gotten softer and weaker, by and large. Universities used to be about the free exchange of ideas where the sand and pebbles were separated from the ore. Now we have children are offended by opposing / contrary positions and, if the NY Times is to be believed, want to be physicians without having to do well in Organic Chemistry, getting their professor essentially fired for being "too hard."

One of the dumbest things in our political system is that, because things are so polarized, we treat things as being strictly binary. When Trumplestilskin was under investigation, there was a... well, counterargument isn't the right word, but will suffice for the moment, suggesting that they should be investigating the politicians who became millionaires while in office, as if this was an "either/or" equation. The fact of the matter is that we, as the electorate, should be doing *both* things, holding all their feet to the fire.

In full disclosure, I am Gen X, raised by pre-Boomers who paid attention to the lessons their parents taught them about the Depression and the war years. I have my own collection of neuroses, problems and issues to deal with that are completely divorced from those of my generation, but the great masses of people are far too comfortable being sheep led around by shepherds, rather than citizens who hold their representatives accountable for their actions. Even John McCain, who was one of the "Keating Five," was essentially give a pass by the Senate Ethics Committee. Being sheeple leads only to being shorn, if you are lucky.

−11

Phantastic_Elastic t1_it2qn2t wrote

I think Lamont has done a remarkably competent job, and he's managed to do it while remaining civil and positive. Our political system has always favored wealthy and connected candidates. At least we should recognize when we luck out with a competent leader who isn't an evil schmuck.

23

bentdaisy t1_it5e3wj wrote

I agree. As far as politicians go, Lamont seems like one of the better ones. I’d be happy to see non-rich people who don’t grease the hands of the rich running, but our system is not set up for that to be possible. It’s not that I accept that—in fact, I’d actively promote candidates who come from the middle class.

Lamont seems to do a good job managing our finances (finally someone who can), stays out of people’s business as much as possible, and is one of the few governors to come with a positive rating with covid. I can’t honestly ask for much more in the current political environment.

4

Wyndeward t1_it33kw8 wrote

It originally favored the wealthy, in part, because they were educated and partly because they were the ones who set up this experiment in representative democracy. We were originally led by polymaths. We're now led by poltroons.

Look at the progression of Presidents. There are peaks and valleys, to be sure, but the trendline has been heading south. The first president had to be all but drafted and vigorously opposed expanding the power of his office, at least for the most part. Adams, bless his heart, had pretty good intentions but some fairly awful ideas. If I recall my history, Jefferson was the first one who really *wanted* the job and exceeded his authority, albeit for the good of the nation. Each successive president, with notable exceptions, has permitted the accumulation and centralization of power. To cite an example, the Department of Education, upgraded to a cabinet-level position in '79, was supposed to remedy problems. Instead, it has grown as a bureaucracy, spent an ever-increasing amount of money and for what? What is the trend-line of test scores? Education has been homogenized and dumbed down to the point where a high school diploma is almost worthless.

As for being an "evil schmuck," Stefanowski isn't "evil" per se... But plain old-fashioned stupidity can do a hell of a lot more damage than evil, if only because it is a hell of lot more common. Payday loans aren't evil, they are amoral -- no one puts a gun to someone's head and makes them borrow against future wages. If government really wanted to, they could revise the laws and regulations of the banking/lending industry and eliminate the business entirely, particularly in single party majority state like Connecticut... but they don't. What does that tell you?

1

Phantastic_Elastic t1_it3pnjd wrote

Your post about the declining quality of presidents is only valid if you can ignore stuff like genocide against native people, enslavement of blacks, segregation, etc. And the complexity of the role has grown exponentially since the 18th century. So no, I don't agree with your characterization. I would say generation x has been a particular disappointment to me, and that's speaking as a member of it. It's the most selfish and entitled of all of them. I also don't agree that payday loans aren't evil, and I wouldn't skip over contracting with the murderous Saudi regime either. I'm pretty sure Stefanowski will do evil if he's given the opportunity to, and I'm usually right about my gut feelings about people and politicians. And it's not even a gut feeling really ... He's already shown a willingness to do so.

8

Wyndeward t1_it3u2er wrote

There are a few weaknesses in your argument. Just as the Preamble talks about a "more perfect union," human nature has been being refined over the same period.
Slavery was inherited from the various colonial powers, primarily the English and the French, and individuals, both great and small, worked to end the practice as early as the start of the country, while even those who held slaves understood their own hypocrisy, such as Washington and Jefferson. Likewise, the repression and attempted extermination of the Native population had as much (if not more) to do with the greed of the electorate as that of the elected. Ironically, the original colonists thought the Native Americans were white men simply made ruddy from their exposure to the sun. I would also point out that the Natives played as much politics and silly buggers with the colonists, at least initially, as did the colonists with the Natives. The use of the Connecticut colonies as a buffer between the more aggressive Pequots and the weaker tribal nations further east by said weaker nations was just as mischievous as what the settlers did to the Natives or each other, early on. Likewise, the level of settlers friendship with the natives tended to be inversely related to the amount of gold they had.

People forget that the Native Americans had slavery, war and genocide long before the Europeans turned the North American continent into the religious equivalent of Australia. The Pequots, for example, wax poetic about "returning the land" land to the tribes that lived there before European settlers arrived, but look sheepish when you inquire how they came to live in such lands... by Pequot oral tradition, they more or less took the lands militarily, culturally obliterating the original inhabitants. Human nature is human nature, regardless of the color of one's skin. The fortunes of the African kingdom nation of Dahomey, for example, rose and fell based on the slave trade. Likewise, if you have ever seen the factor's stations in Africa, you would know that they could not have withstood the ire of the native populace, were that at least some of the tribes not fully complicit with the slave trade.

Generation X has been holding things together with duct tape and bailing wire for so long, while fully expecting to up in a puff of atomic smoke.

In what way, pray tell, are payday loans "evil?" There is no malicious intent on the part of the lender, nor do they force you to take out a loan. There is naught but greed, which is more or less amoral in nature. As for dealing with the Saudis, I would point out that most of the folks most in need of "green energy solutions" to deal with the transitions away from petrochemicals are not, shall we say, on the happy list of Amnesty International. Stupidity readily covers his willingness to do a deal with the Saudis and then run for governor.

0

Phantastic_Elastic t1_it444ui wrote

I've heard all these lousy excuses before, and I've heard them presented a lot more concisely. I don't like making excuses. My ancestors had little trouble differentiating right from wrong. I know when I do wrong. You wrote a lot of words there to excuse evil. Gen X are masters of excuses and moral relativism... It's odious. You probably know better too, but you would rather listen to yourself go on than actually deal with it. I'm not impressed. It takes one to know one.

3

Wyndeward t1_it47ehv wrote

You are confusing facts with excuses. I have excused nothing. I have merely pointed out that ignorance and stupidity, on any given day, are far more dangerous than evil. Real "evil," thank goodness, is relatively rare in this world, while stupidity is a lot like hydrogen. Evil is, to give a "for instance" that doesn't violate Godwin's Law, is Idi Amin Dada. Bob Stefanowski, while tall, which is about the best thing I can say about him, doesn't remotely rise to that level. He is a lender, not a loan shark. He doesn't use force to make loans, he doesn't use force to collect loans, he simply complies with the laws regulating his industry in this state -- laws that the politicians who claim he is "evil" have the power to correct / fix. Why don't they? If you truly believes he is "evil," then those politicians, to be frank, are complicit... or, as Burke would say, all that is required for Bob to be evil is the so-called good men who decry his business to do *EXACTLY* what they are doing... nothing.

Payday loans are the last refuge of the desperate, right up there with the lottery as a retirement scheme and playing day-trader with cash advances from your credit cards... (Yes, I had to explain that to someone some years ago, before the last housing bubble burst). That doesn't make them evil. Stupid as all hell, yes, but evil requires something more... it requires malice / malevolence... something more than plain, old-fashioned apathy and greed.

Quit pounding your shoe on the table.

−1

ParsnipPizza2 t1_it4hv0i wrote

>It originally favored the wealthy, in part, because they were educated and partly because they were the ones who set up this experiment in representative democracy

And because they specifically formatted things to suppress the will of the people in favor of what the rich wanted.

Not kidding. Quite a number of the fabled Founders thought too much democracy was a bad thing and sought to establish a ruling class without quite going straight up monarchist.

4

Wyndeward t1_it4mrqt wrote

"Too much democracy" = mob rule.

In a truly "democratic" system, the majority rules, period. In a republic, there are protections, at least in theory. People don't know their rights anymore, mainly because we replaced civics with "social studies."

People think voting is a right. It isn't, it is a responsibility / duty.

3

TheOtherMark t1_it51tt6 wrote

> pre-Boomers

You are looking for the Silent Generation.

2

bentdaisy t1_it5dn9c wrote

The second I see the word “sheeple” I tune right out. People follow trends and opinions of others. Everyone does. the sheeple insult is thrown at those who have an opinion different from the author. It’s stupid, and it makes you look like a sheeple.

2

Fdizzle_ t1_it324ir wrote

Definitely. The checks and balances are gone and we a left with voting party lines and not voting for policies. The policies which we all seem to lament from our politicians. Meanwhile congress at the federal level won’t bring a bill which the majority of people support related to congressional stock trading. I’m not sure what’s in the bill exactly but it does feel like the will of people isn’t being represented here. Which is funny cause the people blocking it are saying “democracy is on the ballot”.

1

Wyndeward t1_it38f66 wrote

When I was a kid, I recall that putting monies in a "blind trust" was something that politicians did, if for no other reason than to provide the appearance of propriety. (I was lucky that, as a kid, I got an education on saving money and investing from my parents...). Sometime between then and now, it is like the politicians stopped even trying to look upstanding. Insider trading is illegal unless you're elected. As a counter-example, which is about the only way I can illustrate this, Martha Stewart got the book thrown at her for insider trading not for what she did -- *ANYONE* who was told the stock was going to take a nose-dive would have done the same... she got the book thrown at her for two reasons. First, she lied about it. Second, as a former stockbroker, she knew better than to sell the stock and lie about it. The politicians get insider information from their day jobs and buy and sell as according said information.

Part of the problem is that folks are ignorant. Yes, we have democratic elections, but we are a republic, if we can keep it. One could argue that it has morphed into an oligarchy, but that is another issue for another time.

2

dumbthrow33 t1_it3mu5u wrote

You forgot the part where politicians sell insider stock trading tips to the highest bidder versus making the trades themselves to add another layer of insulation…

2

Wyndeward t1_it3o435 wrote

I didn't forget, although I doubt they are actually auctioning it off insider information to the highest bidder in the literal sense. The most egregious thing I am personally aware of in *this* vein was Harry Reid's self-dealing, using his brother as a proxy (land deals) and his "brilliant" ability to time the energy indexes when passing legislature dealing with the energy industry. All very legal, but of questionable ethical value. There are other examples one could come up with involving real estate / fraud (Trump) or cattle futures (Clinton), et al and ad nauseum, but when the political classes start making rules for you and me and exempting themselves, we have an ethical deficit as a bare minimum.

2

JPJ_1779 t1_it3b46x wrote

I don't know why you're being downvoted, that was a very well thought out and lucid analysis. People really suck. Just downvoting anything that doesn't remotely resemble the popular opinion like absolute lemmings.

−1

TheOtherMark t1_it53hw6 wrote

Nominally I agreed with most of his points, except this:

> if the NY Times is to be believed, want to be physicians without having to do well in Organic Chemistry, getting their professor essentially fired for being "too hard."

That's a highly reductionist view of the story and doesn't have anything to do with politics, nor the features and characteristics of successive generations of people. Did this generation of students get weaker, or did the 84 year old professor lose his edge as he aged? Perhaps neither, perhaps it's more the incompatibility between teaching/learning methods over such a large generational gap.

I'm not here to settle the argument on why he was fired, just to say that you can't boil it down to such a simplistic reason.

1

midmodmad t1_it3xsgc wrote

According to his commercial he stands “extremely tall.” So cringey.

9

Badboyforlife411 t1_it2hnyr wrote

Im a dem and cant stand Mccain slander.

He was the a war HERO, the last of a dying breed of honorable republicans, and saved the ACA.

Let him RIP please.

48

Screaming_brain t1_it2sgjf wrote

I didn't agree with his politics, bit he earned a little of my respect when he shut down an old woman who called Obama a Muslim. But when he went to the vote to repeal the ACA, voted "no" and gave a thumbs down to McConnell was the cherry on top.

For those who don't remember. It's wonderful watching that dickbags smug smirk disappear.

https://youtu.be/DWeayFHsH90

25

SlooperDoop t1_it467su wrote

ACA was/is a huge failure. Healthcare costs have more than doubled in CT.

−8

Hazeleyed_old_parent t1_it4b0h7 wrote

Republicans had plenty of opportunities to “fix” it under Dump and did NOTHING. When it comes down to it, GOP doesn’t care about the folks, unless they are rich and white.

11

SlooperDoop t1_it4iks7 wrote

Just like the Democrats could restore Roe v. Wade and fix immigration policy if they wanted. Clearly Democrats don't care about people either, unless they are rich campaign donors.

Neither side is worthwhile. But that doesn't change the fact that ACA raised the cost of healthcare.

−5

Hazeleyed_old_parent t1_it4kva3 wrote

And gave poor people access to healthcare, too. I disagree with your characterization of Democrats. On the whole, they are much more representative of the different people in our country and they represent their constituents much better. Republicans tell their constituents exactly what they want to hear, hoping they won't actually think too hard about it.

6

SlooperDoop t1_it5lqrf wrote

Then why have they not simply put abortion under HIPPA privacy rules and thereby make abortion legal nation wide? Why haven't they passed a law giving DACA kids a path to citizenship? Why don't they even talk about the #1 cause of death for ages 18-40? Why haven't they done something about homelessness and crime in so many big cities?

Democrats are not fixing things for anyone except their own campaign funds.

−1

Hazeleyed_old_parent t1_it5mgor wrote

Perhaps you should write your representatives and ask instead of bitching about it on Reddit.

0

SlooperDoop t1_it5rgy2 wrote

Oh, I know the answer. I'm curious if you do.

1

SMPhil t1_it7ll91 wrote

If you know the answer, then why be condescending and pretentious? You could share your information to get people to agree with you or just be a jerk and belittle people.

1

With_The_Tide t1_it4l4mj wrote

Yeah, I’m a dem and the maverick is one of the few GOP members I can/could stand.

1

mattyzucks t1_it2l9c9 wrote

McCain sucked

−2

Badboyforlife411 t1_it2lng4 wrote

When you spend 5+ years being beaten in the Hanoi Hilton and refuse to leave unless all soldiers before you can leave you are above comments like McCain sucked. You can disagree with his policies but not his integrity.

13

Refn0318 t1_it2n4h9 wrote

I can absolutely disagree with the integrity of a man who abandoned his crippled wife to marry a woman 18 years his junior

16

Dispatches547 t1_it2mslz wrote

He was bombing civilians. No thanks

9

mattyzucks t1_it2niid wrote

Imagine arguing that a warmonger who dropped bombs on civilians in Vietnam has integrity

4

Dispatches547 t1_it2oq0p wrote

I saw the statue in Hanoi where they shot him down. Sky pirate

7

CaptServo t1_it2qhqb wrote

John McCain was almost, but not quite, as good as the worst Democrat.

Lowell Weicker was the real maverick.

1

dumbthrow33 t1_it3nhxp wrote

“Temporary income tax” man lmao

4

CaptServo t1_it4payn wrote

I was referring to his time as a Republican in the US Senate, not as Independent CT governor.

But go ahead, show me in the public record where he said it would be temporary.

1

popcornstuffedbra t1_it2qaca wrote

Yikes. I'm a registered Dem (but that doesn't mean I'll always vote that way). BUT, please leave McCain out of this. This is a horrifically unfair comparison.

As for Stefanowski, well.... I think he should've put his campaign money to better use. Parties aside, his whole message seems hollow and vague. His ads are cringe worthy. But by far, I'm embarrassed at what he calls follower testimony.

Voiceover - "Bob Stefanowski thinks utility bills are too high, listen to this:"

Follower - "My utility bills are too high!"

I've worked on enough campaign ads (both sides) to know that this was as lazy as it gets. Honestly he wasted his money on whomever he hired to produce his ad campaign.

39

Rockefor t1_it4ca29 wrote

...Does he have a family member who owns a production company?

7

Bravely_Default t1_it2n5av wrote

Because he's tall? At least that's all I'm able to glean from his cringy ad.

20

himewaridesu t1_it4ceu8 wrote

I wanted to know how tall he was to know that fact. I can’t find it. Lamont is 5’7” though!

3

CartmansAlterEgo t1_it3blbb wrote

If McCain picked a viable VP he may have won the presidency. Instead he picked Palin and that was that. She was/is a train wreck.

16

travstrick t1_it4jkv1 wrote

ehhhh even then, mccain still wouldn’t have won tbh. republicans were extremely unpopular in 2008 due to the great recession & the bush era. democrats could’ve ran a potato and won that year

13

CartmansAlterEgo t1_it4oqm4 wrote

They basically did. Kidding, but Obama was a kid with no experience. Charismatic but had no business being there at that time. That said, McCain had a good following and was popular on both sides, he had earned it and proven to reach across the aisle. War vet. He debated well and had dignity. That’s how bad Palin was. Just a trainwreck that kept getting worse and worse the more she spoke.

4

MrChadimusMaximus t1_it4s1c6 wrote

Disagree, Obama had a lot of hype, he got people to vote especially minorities and younger people. Bush was also very unpopular.

9

Winnifever t1_it4ku32 wrote

Yup. And she was a very last minute pick. His McCain Romney plane was already painted and at the FBO hangar in AZ and was pulled out and redone once he switched to Palin. My old boss and a pilot friend both separately told me they saw the Romney plane.

3

Bigbird_Elephant t1_it47mqh wrote

Agreed. If his running mate was literally anyone else he would have won.

2

pinktwillshirt OP t1_it4v7e9 wrote

In hindsight, Palin was a more human candidate and somewhat competent, compared to train wreck Harris. It's like she is the walking joke that everyone told us Palin would be.

−5

CartmansAlterEgo t1_it4vkkk wrote

Harris is awful. I’ve often said she is as like-able as a mosquito in a tent and has the social skills of a bee at a picnic.

−2

[deleted] t1_it2j0sg wrote

I assume he’s bored of being a rich white private citizen and wants more power.

The real question for me is why CT republicans voted for him in the primary. Did they really think this spineless MAGA turd with no plans would get elected? Did they like his “ideas”?

Tons of people these days focusing on how bad Republican politicians are, but they are only in power because people vote for them.

14

mylastdream15 t1_it47zir wrote

THIS IS THE ANSWER. A. The CT Republican party just doesn't have a lot of great candidates. And B. When you just have to win by a plurality... If you can get all the MAGA voters on your side. Even if that's 35% of voters... You'll win in the primaries. That's basically how it's gone twice now. This time I think it's basically that the just had no real alternatives that had a shot. Which says a lot about the party in CT

This has actually been an issue nationwide. That mediocre candidates are winning primaries because the maga crowd can give them a plurality in the primaries. There is a style of republican that can win in CT - a MAGA republican is not it. Yet they keep winning primaries because of pluralities. And then losing in the general.

9

[deleted] t1_it4awxp wrote

What did Bob get? 21k votes? That’s how many people in CT want him.

3

mylastdream15 t1_it4fz2c wrote

He'll still probably get like 42-45% of the votes. Because some people actually like him (mostly the maga crowd). And republicans will vote for him because of the big R next to his name. And some independents that claim to be independent but always vote R will vote for him. But that's about it I figure. If stefanowski couldn't win in a year where he was seen as a referendum candidate against Malloy/bad dem leadership. And now is facing a far more popular Lamont. I feel like he has zero shot. I know a lot of people that begrudgingly voted for Lamont last time. This time most of those same people actually were satisfied with him and what he did. (I'd also argue he's the best governor we've had in about 30 years. Which may or may not be saying much depending on how you look at it.) I think it won't be particularly close. But it will be closer than it probably should be. Certain people just vote party line no matter what.

And again. I think he will capture some gullible voters that just see "lower taxes" and don't realize that he really doesn't have a logical gameplan to do that.

5

[deleted] t1_it4jvsy wrote

I mean, they fell for trump’s obvious bullshit, so why wouldn’t they believe Bob? Bob’s a soggy fry coated in mold, but he’s a big step up from orange traitor.

0

fatherfatpants t1_it419w5 wrote

>MAGA turd

You answered your own question. The people that show up most to primaries are old and extreme. If moderate/sane republicans showed up then it would probably be a different story.

1

[deleted] t1_it4bpd9 wrote

Would it? Plenty of MAGA candidates being voted in all around the country. I don’t buy the argument that there’s a sane or decent group of republicans left. It’s the party of MAGA now. They can’t even admit the last election was lost or that j6 was a coup attempt.

5

fatherfatpants t1_it4gxpk wrote

There are some left but they cannot be bothered to get to the primaries. Hell the ones I know personally are voting for Lamont in the upcoming election.

1

[deleted] t1_it4j0iy wrote

The “reasonable” republicans in my family will all stay home during the primaries and line up dutifully to vote R when the actual elections come. They’re getting better at hiding their beliefs though because so many family members are cutting them off.

1

btmc t1_it4gttb wrote

Four years ago, Bob won by outspending his competitors in a crowded field of no-name candidates. The only candidate with a track record, Mark Boughton, was too moderate to win a GOP primary, and so Bob was able to squeak out a win.

This year, Bob is basically a sacrificial lamb since Lamont became quite popular thanks to perceptions of his handling of the pandemic. IIRC it was a much less crowded field, and Bob had the money and the name recognition.

0

[deleted] t1_it4k2gt wrote

Are there any moderate Republicans still winning primaries? Seems like the MAGAS have full control to me.

3

matty088 t1_it5diwy wrote

Do you have brain damage? You can’t honestly think the republicans are the ones with the negative rep heading into this election.

0

[deleted] t1_it5htmq wrote

Republican reputation literally couldn’t be worse. Party of treasonous ignorant bigots.

1

matty088 t1_it5k43n wrote

You are gonna be proven wrong in three weeks.

0

[deleted] t1_it5op1h wrote

In three weeks republicans are going to undo their coup attempt and stop being bigots? Shit I hope so.

3

TheSlippery-1 t1_it4niqp wrote

I’m a life long resident, more right leaning then center and I will absolutely vote for Lamont. He did a great job handling Covid, created revenue by allowing gambling sports books, and generally seems to care about residents of the state. Good enough for me.

13

Unharmful_Truths t1_it3wi6v wrote

So he can text me like every 45 minutes even though I'm not a member of his party.

10

Nyrfan2017 t1_it2ly1b wrote

Erin Stewart . She had high numbers when she tried to run last time around but her party blackballed her out cause she didn’t bring enough money . And they don’t like that she works across the aisle to do what’s right for the people.

9

packofpoodles t1_it2o3x5 wrote

This. Not a fan and wouldn’t vote for her, but if the CT GOP had any sense and really wanted to win, she’s the one.

10

adam_west_ t1_it35m7l wrote

They can’t bring themselves to support a talented administrator with broad public support… instead they look for feckless billionaires to be their ‘daddy’. GOP are some fucked up characters for sure

8

nahmatey t1_it2o08u wrote

Because we don’t live in a fucking monarchy. Anybody can run for office. It’s called freedom.

9

QueenOfQuok t1_it2s8n4 wrote

Why do people run as democrats in Mississippi? There's always someone who thinks they have a shot. And Stefanowski wants to lower his own taxes. That's all.

6

Phantastic_Elastic t1_it2pgym wrote

Because it will help him raise his consulting fees to Saudi Arabia and whatever other crooked shit he's into.

5

HighJeanette t1_it34484 wrote

Laura Devlin tossed aside personal pride and her reputation to be her running mate. Good riddance.

5

Electrical_Air8236 t1_it4c0r6 wrote

That fucking ad where him and his family over use the word "extremely" is EXTREMELY cringe.

5

PorgCT t1_it57zyx wrote

I like to imagine his wife waving his daughter's trust fund behind him as incentive to put on a happy face for the camera.

3

Ayatollah-X t1_it4kt6r wrote

Boughton could have easily beaten Lamont in 2018, but Republicans had to pick the guy who couldn’t win. Lamont was the successor of the least popular Democratic governor in the country in 2018 and should have been easy to beat. Now it’s 2022 and Bob is running against the most popular Democratic governor in the country.

4

Jets237 t1_it4hk8w wrote

I'm an independent but was voting for Lamont either way - I approve of the job he's done.

I honestly have no idea what Stefanowski stands for and he'll likely lose by 15-20 points this time because of it.

Bad campaign but he didn't have a chance anyway, Lamont is a pretty popular governor and unless he decided to seek a different office or there was a scandal, he was going to win regardless.

3

ajamuso t1_it4lgww wrote

Bob “Stefenasty” according to Lamont’s newest ads lmao.

Sickest grandma burn I’ve ever heard

3

ctusa73 t1_it47akj wrote

Because campaigns makes $$$.. their family and outside business partners probably make salary off donations

2

ctusa73 t1_it47bhe wrote

Because campaigns makes $$$.. their family and outside business partners probably make salary off donations

2

mylastdream15 t1_it47mft wrote

Wait wait wait. You mean to tell me that lowering taxes and not actually having a realistic plan to do it other than to put us into the same spot we were years go. (see... Screwed) - by exploiting gullible people that only see the slogan "lower taxes!" isn't a good game plan? I'm shocked!

2

Aaron351 t1_it4ln77 wrote

Because running a campaign can be lucrative.

2

Soft_Ad9309 t1_it5nvq5 wrote

I see his flyer on numerous lawns across New Haven and Litchfield County including industrial sites

2

Love_My_Chevy t1_it7gbsf wrote

He and his family are all entitled assholes to boot.

They used to frequent my last job and had to deal with their crap

2

pinktwillshirt OP t1_it7pywu wrote

Can you tell us more?

2

Love_My_Chevy t1_it7y9me wrote

I would but it is a small business I really loved working at and has people I loved working for.

I don't want any harm to come to them or their business

Ninja edit: but what I can say is if you work in the service industry, he looks down his nose at you and acts like he should be the center of attention

2

Wrong-Tea-5470 t1_it5c7rz wrote

I don't know, but it's probably so the blue lives matter/dont tread on me/unmask our kids people an extra sign to hang in their yard.

1

ArabianCamels t1_it5vieo wrote

What is the point of you writing this if you were never considering voting for him? I see ten of these a day, if not one of you is even considering voting for him, why give him any publicity on here? Why is this loser candidate in your mind?

1

ManhattanMadMan t1_it9tqy8 wrote

Lot of people fell for the stuff on Jill Stein. My father too. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi4j8DHxfL6AhV-ElkFHZjeB4EQtwJ6BAgDEAE&url=%2Famp%2Fs%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fnews%2Famp%2Fncna951166&usg=AOvVaw01lMeF5GoZG7SuYs3ohE_2

1

moderncincinatus t1_itdv061 wrote

Okay so I've been thinking about this for a while. He knows he's going to lose the campaign yet he continues to run. I would definitely like to see his books opened up because that's a lot of money that would be better spent in other state elections.

1

NickSteve5 t1_itvdos5 wrote

Because he’s so good looking

1

silasmoeckel t1_it2bga0 wrote

Because it looks bad if they dont find somebody to run.

It's like the libertarian presidential canidate they know they have no chance in winning so it's more find the guy who can run off for a year on something they know won't succeed. This leads to that weird rich guy saying yes because it's something to do.

0

pinktwillshirt OP t1_it2brat wrote

He wants to be a Glenn Youngkin, but hasn't done the same level of hard work or outreach.

At this point, those who will vote for Bob are those guys who hurl drinks at kids in a Fairfield Robeks and people on Facebook who defend him.

−1

silasmoeckel t1_it2dqyl wrote

As I said it's the bored rich guy with delusions etc.

As to voting, there is a lot to be said for not Ned. I think plenty of people can reasonably take umbrage with the what but more importantly how he has done things. But that pretty much leaves them with in the position of casting a throw away vote often for the crazy rich guy with no chance of winning.

−2

bdy435 t1_it4cx5y wrote

>He's like the McCain of the Connecticut GOP.

More like Mittens Romney.

0

rwilcox t1_it4inns wrote

Same reason anyone runs: the money, the power, the inside trading opportunities

0

ForwardEnergy t1_it5u8rs wrote

I’m sure you’ll vote for Biden again.

0

DarthLysergis t1_it2jd77 wrote

Fuck seditious fascists.

While Bob may not have a direct connection i can think of to the current breed of republican crazies we see today, he is however willingly part of the fascist party.

I cannot in good conscience vote for any candidate in any office who willingly supports the republican party in its current state.

−1

1JoMac1 t1_it4jw4c wrote

Seriously. Another Republican that doesn't have any policy, just bashes the opposition, is another Republican in office that either will cheer on the Maga lunacy or at the least excuse it. CT already has it's fair share of politicians that sound like they get their talking points from anonymous message boards

2

Yung_Onions t1_it4fz7x wrote

This type of rhetoric is exactly what you claim to argue against. The self unawareness is baffling.

−1

DarthLysergis t1_it4nh7l wrote

All of the very real evidence that has come out of the January 6th hearings; The current republican leadership who is tearing down the constitution; the idiot representatives and candidates who have no business in politics, barely being a janitor. The overall open indifference or even reverence for an attempted coup on the United states. And that is the MAJORITY of the GOP.

The democrats are attempting to assign responsibility and pass judgement on a crime we all watched happen. We are railing against the absolute barrage of lies that republicans spew. On top of that we have already had two republicans in disguise who stonewalled our party this last term. We also had supreme court judges who either are openly bias; unqualified, married to a seditionist, or accused of multiple sexual crimes where the investigation was recently described as a sham.

There are two very different sides; and the side who is on the right side of history....is the left.

6

Yung_Onions t1_it4pcgb wrote

I feel sorry for you

−3

DarthLysergis t1_it4qano wrote

Ok, i hope that helps you sleep at night knowing the party you appear to support attempted to overthrow the very country that party claims to defend. I sleep fine knowing Democrats are at least attempting to put those criminals in prison.

3

Yung_Onions t1_it4qiqd wrote

I don’t support either party anymore for this reason. The radical mentality on both sides which you are contributing to is going to be what destroys this country.

−4

DarthLysergis t1_it4r4gl wrote

Apparently radical is defined by

Trying to make healthcare available to all

Trying to make critical drugs affordable (blocked by gop)

Trying to reduce gas and oil prices (blocked by gop)

Trying to tax the ultra wealthy at a more appropriate level (blocked by gop)

Trying to push green energy to make us less reliant on fossil fuels.

And generally trying to act like a first world, civilized nation.

2

Wyndeward t1_it5inok wrote

For starters, legislation can't override scarcity and the other basic laws of economics.

You want to reduce the price of oil and gas? Allow more drilling -- greater supply, generally speaking, leads to lower prices. When Biden shut down certain auctions for petroleum rights, he created the perception that he was against oil, which rattled the markets, leading to a spike in the price of crude oil, which lead to a spike in gasoline prices.

Healthcare, being a complex "system" (I use quotes, mainly because the US healthcare system isn't a system, it is more like a quilt...), getting the government out of the business of insurance would be a good start. Medicare regulations, due mainly to the law of unintended consequences, artificially hiked health care costs, screwing the uninsured and the private payor. To give an example, every hospital that participates in the Medicare program is required, by law, to have a single rate for each and every procedure they perform. They also not permitted to offer discounts to private payers for paying cash. They are permitted, however, to offer "contractual allowances" to insurance companies and are required to give the best of those rates to the government. Combine that with the history of insurance in America, and you have a real problem. People stopped looking at their medical bills back in the Sixties and matters have only gotten worse since then.

Why didn't the Democrats correct the taxes when they controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency under Obama? They had the votes to do so and chose not to, mainly because a politician first concern is getting elected and their second one is getting re-elected.

The simplest way to do most of the above is to get government out of the way of most things,

2

Yung_Onions t1_it4rmxj wrote

No sir, don’t backpedal like that. If you’re engaging in aggressive, divisive, and/or violent “us vs them” rhetoric and sweeping generalizations, you’re very much radical in my opinion.

0

DarthLysergis t1_it4v2hf wrote

I didn't backpedal anything. Please explain to me.

What is the most radical thing that democrats are doing. Specifically

Then tell me the most radical thing republicans are doing. There are a lot, so feel free to list a few.

2

Knineteen t1_it3puls wrote

I agree. He should know this state is a shill for blues. Nothing matters except party loyalty.

−1

ComprehensiveSong197 t1_it58a38 wrote

Because anything is better then the liberal bullshit destroying CT. It is so sad that people have such double standards.

−2

ct-yankee t1_it2kb1e wrote

What a bad shot to the late John McCain who'd we all be fortunate to still have around...

Bob Stefanowski is the best the GOP has to offer, which is why he loses...always.

−3

AdForeign9262 t1_it56jvw wrote

Because anything is better than Lamont. He used the death of an infant as covid propaganda. Completely evil and unforgivable.

His leadership has been poor. He beats the "no gunz" drum but fails to keep the roads safe. Look around at the sheer amount of young people with recurve knee canes and boot immobilizers due to accidents. I fear for the saftey of everyone I love in this state because of the poor conditions.

Vote him out.

−4

Babyboys1618 t1_it4myon wrote

Oh look another liberal post and the Lib mob eats it up. I swear y'all act just as weird as those trump super supporters y'all claim to be so extreme...

−5

DarkDeSantis t1_it2e8ch wrote

>I'm a registered democrat, but I'm truly independent.

Homie you live in CT, you don't know what independent even begins to mean, proven by your title...

−14

[deleted] t1_it2j7ud wrote

What does this even mean? I’m progressive too and don’t consider myself a democrat. I’d love to have a second option to vote for, but as it is we just have democrats and fascists.

7

Yung_Onions t1_it4g5mw wrote

I’m a Republican and also wonder why stefanowski is running. Living in CT doesn’t make you a democrat by virtue.

3

AggravatingShop4649 t1_it2vr3o wrote

Because if you paid attention last election cycle to the debates he was the clear winner. Hands down, rolled up ned and smoked him

−15