I can't believe I'm saying this, but could legal weed have been a bad thing? That brand of fuckery is getting increasingly popular here in Canada too.
Slightly more seriously, I wonder if Long COVID really is messing up people's brains to this extent. People who would have been on the fence about voting for someone like her before COVID were also the most likely to intentionally avoid protecting themselves from it. Are future historians going to look to that as the catalyst that collectively broke our brains?
Edit: to clarify my initial joking comment about legal weed, I'm super in favor of it and have been for a very very long time. The "brand of fuckery" I refer to as getting more popular in Canada is a reference to the Boebert/Trump-style populism that's been invading our country over the last decade and to which our almost definite next prime minister subscribes. I was merely joking that perhaps Coloradans are smoking too much, leading to decisions like re-electing Boebert, and perhaps that's also why we Canadians are making poor choices in this regard.
I don't care about the downvotes for my vague post - just want to set the record straight that I think weed is good, and putting people in jail for using it is bad.
Your perspectives suck and no one's told you. This was maybe a time when you should've only asked a good question.
That's not a judgement of you as a person.
Handjob McVape chose a ridiculously gerrymandered district. This is middle class wage slaves, rural property owners, and the employees of rural property owners (incl. oil workers on rented rights).
Pot smokers worldwide lean hard left or are unengaged with their political and activist proceses.
It's not COVID making people stupid. They're just stupid, always have been, and don't know it. Humans have been choosing kings to conveniently let another reason and choose for them since the beginning of humanity. They're not changing. You are.
Ok, as someone from Colorado, District 4 is super fucking rural... Think 23.3 people per square mile (District 1 is Denver, 4,678 people per square mile). These people are Trump people, and Boebert is a Trump bootlicker, this is not a surprise. She changed districts because she knew she couldn't win her old district.
Colorado has 8 districts, so this is the result of 1/8 of the population, and easily the most red. This is not a representation of Colorado, Colorado is firmly blue and most of us fucking hate her guts.
I don't understand how the system in the US works at all. It seems like a very small amount of people with a very specific background vote on people. So there's a ton of people getting elected all the time. But somehow the people who are elected make international news all the time? They seem very much not important and only represent a small part of the population.
Am I missing something? Why are these clowns like Bobo The Clown and Magic The Gathering getting so much attention? Who cares what some random idiots do, if they don't actually have that much power to begin with.
You're right! If the Republicans had firm control over the house, these shit heads wouldn't have the power they do. However, the current house has a razor thin margin, 213 Democrats and 222 Republicans, so losing 5 Republicans and they can't pass anything. This has given that small portion of ultra right wing reps (Boebert, MTG, Gaetz, etc.) a ton of power over the Republican Party.
The major problem is the way that rural populations are privileged in the ways they influence political outcomes. Of course, they get raw-dogged (economically) as a result of their stupid choices, but hey, they got to "own the libs" by inflicting assholes like beetlebert on the rest of us.
As a district 4 resident I'll add some more context (and reason why we need ranked choice voting nationally).
The Republican primary was packed, with 6 total candidates. Boebert only got 43% of the vote, and the next closest was Sonnenberg at 13%. The non-MAGA conservatives spread their votes across all the other candidates. With ranked choice, it would be a much closer margin. I'm not saying she would have lost, but over 50% of voting repubs wanted someone else over Boebert.
The "good" news is Boebert is pooling poorly vs Dems in the district, which means we have a chance to flip district 4 blue in November.
On the other hand, this is a clear minority of Colorado. The state has turned solid blue over the past decade. This largely rural district no longer represents Colorado as a state. Much like MTG's largely rural district in Georgia no longer represents Georgia as a state.
[...] we can also trace a longer structural change in the imagination of the right: namely, the gradual acceptance of the entrance of the masses onto the political stage. From Hobbes to the slaveholders to the neoconservatives, the right has grown increasingly aware that any successful defense of the old regime must incorporate the lower orders in some capacity other than as underlings or starstruck fans. The masses must either be able to locate themselves symbolically in the ruling class or be provided with real opportunities to become faux aristocrats in the family, the factory, and the field. The former path makes for an upside-down populism, in which the lowest of the low see themselves projected in the highest of the high; the latter makes for a democratic feudalism, in which the husband or supervisor or white man plays the part of a lord.
-The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism From Edmund Burke to Donald Trump, by Corey Robin
The district is extremely rural and Republican and the opposition to Boebert were unable to coalesce around any one candidate, thus splitting the slightly less crazy vote. Let's be clear here though, none of the other candidates were good picks either.