Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.
A friend is starting a SuperPAC to publish billboard in senators' hometowns around the country, to remind them and their constituents of their 2016 statements on nominating a Supreme Court Justice during an election year.
Your friend is setting their money on fire.
The problem with this theory is that it assumes that any Republican -- in congress or in the electorate -- give a shit about consistency, fairness, rules, or hypocrisy. They do not. They care about victory, power, and dominance over the out-group. Nothing else.
"Surely now that I have a video clip of this person saying the opposite, they will change their position! This time for sure!"
Yep: the biggest mistake in that kind of enterprise is to assume that a Republican elected official can be shamed into behaving a certain way. The simple reality is that they have no shame.
I suppose one could argue that using tactics like advertising a GOP figure's hypocrisy might convince voters to shun them. But that presumes that Republican voters care about things like that. Overwhelmingly, they don't.
All too true. I hope that there is an effect on blue voters to come out of the woodwork, instead of hiding like in 2016 (without an exceeding effect on red voters). Advertising is a funny business.
Probably the money would be better spent organizing or going straight to campaigns.
Seriously. Just this morning I was reading about Mitt Romney being disgusted by how Trump make the US look to the rest of the world. And it's like, "Where the fuck was that 'disgust' three weeks ago when Romney backed Trump in moving ahead with RGB's replacement?"
There's no middle ground with Republicans, Libertarians, Objectivists, Neo-Cons, Proud Boys, Red Pill-ers, QAnon-ers, Tea Partiers, or whatever-the-fuck-new-nickname-they're-going-by-this-week-to-avoid-the-words-"klan-members". They're all Tim Blake Nelson's character in Syriana: