But he'll still just see it as the people he picked winning, so he'll still stroke his ego over it.
In California (or, at least, in my part of it), we don't have "incumbent" on the ballot, but each candidate's stated career is listed as an identifier.Actually, I had a thought, somewhat off topic. It's one thing for incumbents to consistently sweep the general election, because most districts have a consistent bias for one party or the other that isn't going to chance from one year to the next, and most voters literally don't even know who the candidates are and just go with whoever is affiliated with their party. But what about primaries? What kind of people tend to vote in those, and what are their criteria? I'm sure they tend towards being better informed, but by how much? Do people just see the word "incumbent" and rubber-stamp that guy with a similar lack of further research? Would we start seeing a lot more people losing the primaries if we stopped printing that word on the ballot?
The irony is rich: Truth Social, Donald Trump’s Twitter copycat claiming it is “free from political discrimination,” has reportedly banned users who posted information from Thursday’s congressional hearing on the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol — in which the former president is a key focus.
That’s according to several posts on Twitter by users who claimed Truth Social was censoring them. Reps for Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns and operates Truth Social, did not respond to a request for comment.
Travis Allen, whose Twitter bio describes him as an information security analyst, on Thursday evening posted a screenshot from the Truth Social app that said “Account suspended,” and he wrote: “My Truth Social account was just permanently suspended for talking about the January 6th Committee hearings.”