They may be more worried about their other races than they are the Presidential vote TBH. NC is already facing a lawsuit about is congressional districts. When there was an Voting RIghts Act, apparently it was racist not to have minority-majority districts in the south and since it was struck down, it is racist to have minority majority districts. Sometimes I swear the democrats will eventually seek to declare that having a salt shaker and a pepper shaker on the same table is separate and unequal racism.
I am sure you intend your comments to somehow be germane to the thread topic -- which is the strategy and tactics the GOP are using to garner votes in NC -- but it escapes me just how they are. Can you please clarify your comments so their relevance to the thread topic is dramatically less oblique and vague?
The GOP wants to keep their GOP dominated Congressional delegation. They further want to keep their republican governor in office who is in a neck and neck race.
Not everything the GOP does is about Donald Freaking Trump. Is that clear enough for you?
Red:
Yes. That is far clearer and far more precise. I understand what you restatement means and implies. TY.
Blue:
True. But the folks who are going door-to-door are discussing Donald Trump and not the other GOP candidates, at least that's what they attested to be doing in the news clip that just aired on CNN. Perhaps they were prevaricating about their goals and activities?
Not necessarily. I imagine if you can get people out for Trump, those people will also vote for the GOP straight ticket. Maybe it is putting hot dog buns on sale because it makes it more likely you will buy the hotdogs, chili and onions at regular price.
Well, if you think likening impulse buying with choosing a President, okay. I prefer to think/hope that folks put considerably more though into their voting behavior than they do to their grocery store practices.
More germane to the plausibility of your suggestion is this. If a merchant wants to sell more hot dogs, that's what s/he puts on sale. In doing so, the expectation is that they may sell more chilli, onions and buns, not the other way round.
There's a very good reason for that. Hot dogs and buns are
complementary goods; thus the demand for one derives from the demand for the other. Even as they are complements, there is nonetheless
primacy in the demand of one over the other, in this case, hot dogs over buns.
Economists identify complementary goods as "focal goods" (hot dogs) and "other goods" (buns), depending on which one drives the demand of the other.
Buns, onions, mustard, chilli, etc. all, for most people, have their demand derived from or inspired by hot dogs (hamburgers too). In contrast, hot dogs do not derive their demand from buns, mustard, etc. Now maybe there are some individuals whose thought/behavioral process is "Hmmm...I want hot dog buns. Now that I've got some, what can I buy along with them? Oh, I know...hot dogs," but those folks are few and far between. Merchants won't be in business long if their business model relies on such consumers. (Remember, microeconomics describes the rational
behavior of
rational consumers and sellers. It makes no attempt to describe the behavior of irrational individuals.)
The allegory you presented above is a strange and inaccurate one for reflecting the relationship between/among complementary goods/services. Moreover, it'd take quite a lot of evidence to show credibly that it's accurate to say that for most voters the relationship between wanting a "down ticket" candidate (representation by that candidate) and, as with complementary goods purchases in grocery stores, that by being in the place where one "buys" the "down ticket" candidate, one will incidentally vote also for the candidate at the top of the ticket. For as unusual as this election cycle is, I don't think it's so unusual that a complete reversal of typical voters' candidate selection decision making processes is reasonably expected by either party's strategists or by political observers and analysts.
