Days after a CNN report about racist and sexual comments posted on a pornography forum, all but a few of Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson’s campaign team quit their jobs on Sunday.

A campaign news release said that four top staffers have left the campaign: Conrad Pogorzelski, general consultant and senior advisor who’s worked for Robinson since his initial 2020 lieutenant governor campaign; Chris Rodriguez, campaign manager; Heather Whillier, finance director; and Jason Rizk, deputy campaign manager.

But WUNC has confirmed that other staffers have quit as well, leaving Robinson with just three people working on his campaign — two campaign spokesmen and a bodyguard. The list of departures also include longtime director of operations Patrick Riley and political directors John Kontoulas and Jackson Lohrer.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

70 points

It’s weird; I didn’t see a single ad for Robinson here in NC until after the scandal broke

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

permalink
report
reply
27 points

Well, he has all the money he was paying them free to spend now…

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

My guess is frequency illusion

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Might make sense if I hadn’t been painfully aware of his existence for months before this latest incident.

There’ve actually been a lot of anti-Robinson ads ever since the primary.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Maybe the opposition stopped bothering advertising against him so hard.

Or move they’re working on new ads that are coming this week.

Is actually better for Dems if he doesn’t drop out of the race (I think the deadline to replace him on the ballot is Thursday). So if we’re quiet and force him to stay on the ballot, it will help us for both the presidency and governor race.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

Lucky you. I started seeing them months ago. They paint him as this innocent Southern man of humble origins. Tbf, I don’t remember seeing one of them within the past month or so, so maybe they’ve actually died off in some places,

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Dear MAGA SuperPACs, I’ve received more of your mailings than credit card offers and bills combined over the past four month. Though the gaslighting offered by them frequently cause me to laugh out loud at your brazen lies, I still tire from seeing that treasonous pumpkin of a candidate you have in my mailbox. As 99% of these mailings get torn up and thrown straight into my outside recycling bin, you are more than welcome to stop mailing me. Thank you, committed Harris voter in North Carolina.

permalink
report
parent
reply
51 points
*

This is an example of why I think it’s wrong that getting rid of Trump would just mean someone else takes his place. If this happened to Trump–and it basically has several times already–it would play out in the media for a few days, and then he’d do something incredibly stupid and headlines would forget about it.

However, when this happens to any other Republican, they’re quickly abandoned. Like what used to happen to all Republicans or Democrats when they become politically radioactive.

Trump is a special case. He hit just the right resonance with just the right number of people to have a base of support, and then also have a bunch of other people who passively go along with it. He is not so easy to replace. Oh, someone will try, probably several someones. They’ll eat each other in the attempt and go nowhere.

permalink
report
reply
26 points

DeSantis took a good shot at being Trump 2.0. He had the media attention, truckloads of money, a bully pulpit he used to attack “Wokeism” 24/7 while implementing actual hard right policies. On paper, he should have attracted MAGA voters, at the very least as a possible successor to Trump. Instead, it just… didn’t work.

Trump captured lightning in a bottle in 2016. He was able to present himself as this John Galt-like figure while also leveraging his media savvy to control narratives and dominate coverage. Obviously, not everyone bought it, but enough did to win the election. No one on the right has those qualities now. It may not even be possible to duplicate. At this point, even the 2024 version of Trump is failing to live up to 2016 Trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Unless the other candidate satisfies Worthington’s Law: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Worthington’s_law

Not even kidding.

Donnie might not even have billions, but millions of people support him because they think he’s rich and they think he’s somehow worthy of that money. If some other racist loudmouth billionaire comes along, the qons will be lining up to give him a soft job, too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Diaper riles up the rubes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

what baffles me is not that someone does this (not that i condone that) but that person in his position does that signed with his work email (or email that isn’t total burner)

permalink
report
reply
15 points

Yeah, he failed the stupidity test

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

In any other timeline I’d think he would have no chance. But really, how many of is would be really and truly shocked if he won anyway? Surprised? Sure. But actually shocked?

permalink
report
reply
6 points

republicans in NC just can’t stop offering up completely unelectable psychos and/or morons as their candidates. these are the dicktips who thought madison fucking cawthorn was a great idea

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Hell, cawthorn and his talk of cocaine and sex parties looks looks tame by comparison.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Is he unelectable, though?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

because it’s a cult, dear great leader trump is the only one who’s completely unaffected by scandal. small time nobodies like mark robinson aren’t. look at madison cawthorn. george santos. christian ziegler. though loyalty is more important than anything else to them, their 2 brain cells rubbing together at least recognizes that this toxic goon will do literally nothing to help the republican party, and everything to make them even more hated than they already are. even fucking trump wants nothing to do with him

completely fucking unelectable

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

“Yeah, he said he’s a black Nazi and watches tran[s] porn, but my Diaper-wearin’ Golden God Emperor endorsed him! Besides, I couldn’t possibly vote for a Democrat, they are just so extreme!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

“He’s one of the good ones. Well spoken and would own slaves”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Are the staffers who quit still Republicans? Yeah? No points for integrity then. You were getting paid to make the world worse, and now you’re getting out because you got caught.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 438K

    Comments