She was compared to a robot and a jukebox, among other unflattering comparisons, and there were also comments made about her looks including the length of her neck that would have had CNN and MSNBC ranting on and on for days and probably weeks on end about the Republican “war on women” had Loeffler been a Democrat.
In addition to that, the MSM seemed hell-bent on “fact-checking” (and I use the term very loosely here) and playing gotcha games with Loeffler while largely ignoring comments from Warnock because of course they did.
Case in point: CNN’s Chris Cillizza, who four years ago proclaimed rather boldly that “Reporters don’t root for a side. Period.” Though it sounded really good at the time, he’s spent much of his time since then debunking his own arguments, including in comments he made about what Loeffler said during the debate about how critical the January 5th Georgia Senate runoff races were.
Cillizza’s hot take was that Loeffler had been “caught” admitting President Trump lost Georgia even though she didn’t say the actual words:
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) December 7, 2020
He even wrote an entire article the next day on how, in his view, “Kelly Loeffler got backed into admitting Donald Trump lost.” This was the crux of his argument:
Loeffler’s responses above show that she knows she’s been caught. Because she can’t argue these two things simultaneously:
1) A Republican Senate majority is the only thing keeping Democrats from defunding the police and beginning the march toward socialism.
2) Donald Trump actually won the election and is going to be in office for four more years.
It’s an either/or proposition. If Trump actually did win, then a Republican Senate majority would be a luxury for him — sure — but it wouldn’t be a necessity. It wouldn’t be the last blockade against Democrats’ radical agenda.
What a stupid argument to make. Even if Trump does win and is in office for the next four years, having the Senate at 50-50 with Pence as the tiebreaker would not really be a “luxury” considering there are Republican Senators who sometimes break with the majority, like Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski.
For example, it would work much more to Trump’s advantage during another possible Democratic effort to impeach and remove him from office if he had a 52-48 majority in the Senate versus there being a 50-50 tie. It would also work more to his advantage and to the Republicans’ advantage, in general, to have a 52-48 majority because it would force Pelosi, not McConnell, to make more concessions on legislation in order to get bills passed in the Senate and signed into law by POTUS.
The Republican agenda could be all but stalled in a 50-50 tie, even with having Pence as a tiebreaker. Over time the frequent stalemates would lead to Republicans making concessions they didn’t want to, which would lead to watered down and toothless bills that Trump might feel obligated to sign in the interests of appearing to get things done.
It is always, always, ALWAYS advantageous for a political party to have a more solid majority than a bare minimum majority, which history has shown us over and over again.
That Cillizza believes Loeffler’s answer was some sort of tacit admission of a Trump election loss is pretty comical, especially considering he gets paid the big bucks to provide “expert” analyses on the ins and outs and highs and lows of DC politics.
But reporters don’t root for a side and all, y’all. Because Cillizza said so.