comment: >
  
  They do mention the voters in the article. Out of the people who voted for him only 2 out of every 3 said they wouldn’t vote for him again. Embarrassing really.
  The ones who would still vote for him are probably a bunch of conspiracy theorists with room temperature IQ.
context: What is scary is 23% don't.  Same MAGA number every time. >
  
  The entire bottom 1/3 of the electorate is responsible for 90% of the bullshit conspiracy nonsense.  They will believe almost anything as long as it is only supported by allegations and speculation- there can't be any actual evidence. If there isn't room for them to make a leap of faith in believing something, they refuse to believe it at all.  They need to feel like they are smart enough to make the connections that others don't.
  The cynical Republican leaders play to that credulity gap, stoking the conspiracy nonsense because those voters who who gravitate to nonsense are the ones who actually go to the polls in primary elections.  The whole charade is so transparent and obvious, except to the bottom third, for whom obvious transparency can only mean the Deep State is even more effective in misinforming people.  The easier it is to prove, the more it must be fake.  We have finally reached Terminal Stupidity. >
  
  Turns out having a room temperature iq doesn't stop you from voting. >
  
  You ever think about how idioms like that change depending on the scale you're using? Standard room temperature for stuff is considered what, 68 Fahrenheit? Very dumb, but potentially livable. Then in Celsius, that's like 20, not sure how you'd even measure that low.  On the other end, that's like 293 Kelvin, some kind of super genius. Or 527ish Rankine is unfathomable as well. Not at all relevant to the comment, just got me thinking down that line. >
  
  Trust me, in Celsius using areas, they're using the same idiom whenever talking about people who vote Republican. >
  
  It's negative 40 IQ in either scale >
  
  It’s such a weird thing bc it’s so clear he’s a grifter and not an ideologue. He could use his two years to cause so much chaos and have so much fun but he’ll probably just vote party line :( >
  
  Vote the party line and collect a pension for the rest of his life. >
  
  Gotta have 5 years for the pension. >
  
  I think it’s like 20+ years or so to have it be fully vested as well. >
  
  Maybe they should have paid attention during the election, too. Then this could have been an election result and not a poll. >
  
  Didn't the big stories about him break after the election? I think it's a bit much to expect an individual to figure this stuff out. >
  
  I mean, given that Republicans have been nothing but regressive, obstructionist pigs in 85% of state and federal government for the past 24 years, I can not see what would compel a New Yorker to vote for a Republican, ever, let alone GEORGE SANTOS. >
  
  If I remember correctly, a lot of Asian Americans in NYC swapped to Republican this election because of the upswing of Asian hate crimes and the democrat stance on crime handling
  It should be noted most of the attacks on Asian Americans here are not right wing motivated >
  
  Great logic, Dems aren't doing enough so let's vote for the openly virulent racist party that hates us for being Asian and has never done anything to reduce race-motivated hate. In fact, they consistently stoke it. Ditto for Cubans in Florida. >
  
  Don’t hate on the voters in this case, they were duped into it. 
  You have to remember they were having right wing propaganda jammed down their throats, and knew nothing about Santo’s lies at the time.
  The Dem party holds a large portion of the blame here, as they just paid no attention to the matter during the run up to the election. They turned a blind eye because they were so overly confident that voters in the district would never vote republican, which was just incorrect. Alarm bells had been rung too, the dem party just didn’t want to invest any time or money to fight it. >
  
  I don’t know how the election campaigns were around NYC and that specific district, but let’s not pretend Democrats have been ignoring hate crimes against Asian Americans in general
  Maybe not enough was done in the district, or maybe not enough attention, but to say it was ignored by Democrats is pretty blatantly false, especially when plenty of prominent Republicans were egging it on and standing in the way of anything getting done >
  
  Oh, I had in no way intended to imply that Dems were ignoring crime against Asian Americans, just that they allowed the GOP to campaign on misinformation that made said Asian Americans feel like Dems weren’t doing anything about it. The problem was the Dems just didn’t think they needed to invest further in fighting for that district because they assumed they didn’t need to. It was a strategic mistake.
  Still, that doesn’t change that the GOP lied to these voters about their own candidate and gave misinformation about which party was able to better protect its voters from crime. That lie is on the GOP and Santos, but the fact it wasn’t better challenged in this district is the Dems fault as well.
  I was just saying don’t blame the voters themselves in this case, as they were the ones being lied to. >
  
  I get you, I’ve just seen a lot of stuff online the past few years where it’s subtly implied that anything bad happening to X minority is being condoned by Democrats, because secretly Democrats are the “real” racists
  And I get falling for lies, but at the same time it’s a tough pill to swallow when for the past half decade near on every single Republican politician was lining up to  imply Covid was the fault of Asians and deny any hate crimes were happening as a result of that implication >
  
  I don’t think I’m implying that Dems are racists, nor do I have any intention to.
  Still, it’s really not the fault of the voters here. They genuinely want the guy recalled, and he straight up lied to them. That doesn’t really make them gullible, just vulnerable to political manipulation, which is what happened here.
  Fan of the Dems or not, you have to admit this is partially because they dropped the ball in this district and didn’t take the time to fight the candidate who was feeding their voters lies. >
  
  He won't, the Republicans are bought by the Russian mob and he's no exception. >
  
  And he'd turn on them in half a heartbeat if someone paid him enough.
  He has no loyalty to anyone other than himself. >
  
  The Russians will murder their family members. They're blackmailing them. >
  
  I know of the extensive corruption, oligarch interests, and dark money, but do we have evidence of violent threats and extortion? >
  
  Yes. Exhibit A-Z what happens to Putin's rivals. Defenestration or polodium tea. >
  
  This won't be forgotten. Even though he's not running for reelection, this could have downstream effects for how vetting occurs here going forward.
  And to make that point even clearer, the front runner for special election or 2024 on the GOP side would be Jack Martins. His record and credentials are well established. But he could lose simply because of the anger.
  By the time the next census comes around, yes the district could revert to its newly questionable redder demographics from the recent redistricting. If not for Santos, this district could have been a GOP hold for a few years. >
  
  Yeah I don't think they'll forget.  Reps are only elected for two year terms, he'd be running for reelection in 2024 himself if he thought he could somehow pull it off. >
  
  We're delivering a 100k signature petition tomorrow to his office.
  The local-only petition is ongoing. >
  
  What makes you think his office would care about that if recalls are not a thing in your state? >
  
  It's not a state issue.  There are no recalls in any state for members of Congress; because the Constitution doesn't allow for any.
  And in fact, specifies the opposite: that each house of Congress itself is the sole judge of the qualification of its membership.  A house of Congress can vote to expel a member, but that's literally the only way to remove one from office against their will (other than death, which is presumably against their will too). >
  
  Ok same question. Why would his office care about a petition? >
  
  I suspect he doesn't care at all about any petition.
  If it has any impact, it'd be as a demonstration to other Congressional Republicans that the public, including a large share of Republican voters, want the guy gone and that they might be harming themselves by not getting rid of him. >
  
  22% of third district residents are human garbage. >
  
  I think he should stay until next election when a Democrat can run against him. >
  
  That's not a bad strategy.  If he resigns he might get replaced with someone more effective.  But if he sticks around, he'll be so busy dealing with this ongoing scandal that he'll be ineffective at politics. >
  
  Exactly! >
  
  Many of those same folks voted for this idiot.  Amazing. >
  
  Maybe they could have gone and voted. Or at least look into who they voted for. >
  
  I hate low-information voters so much >
  
  Maybe Newsday could have done some investigative journalism and broke some of these stories themselves before the election? >
  
  Seriously, Long Island’s Newspaper completely ignored the dirt dug up by North Shore Leader. They changed tack like NYPost only after things went from awful to abominable. >
  
  If only the people of that district would have had an opportunity to weigh in on his fitness for office prior to this.  If only... >
  
  Much of the news coverage of Santos is "too little too late". For crying out loud, a similar candidate in Ohio got exposed earlier by national media (JR Majewski, by the AP in September). >
  
  22% said not to resign? Wow >
  
  There's a large, uncaring percentage of the general populace. Trump supporters, for example. >
  
  Did all 78% vote in the midterm?