Kemp won't run for Senate, but MTG says she might run instead.

[Aloha Hoosier]

Is it possible that the GOP's descent in MAGAland and the Dems' descent into Bernieland could clear the path for a realistic alternative that stays within an arm's length of the political center?

Or will too many center-right, MAGA-averse people keep voting Republican to oppose the Berniecrats...and too many center-left Bernie-averse people keep voting Democrat to oppose MAGA?

It's not lost on me that Donald Trump, with all his baggage, still managed to get 95% of the votes from Republicans.

It's long been a matter of absolute certainty that a viable 3rd party is an impossibility. I've always subscribed to that view. But nothing is permanent.

To your opening question - I certainly hope so.

Interestingly, Bernie never joined the Democratic Party despite his promise to do so. He's still an Independent.

As far as MAGA goes, Republicans identifying as MAGA were a (loud) minority of the party until just before the election when they reached 55 percent. Now they're up to 71 percent. Yes, I hope that shrinks considerably with the growing unpopularity of the President and even more when he's no longer President and relatively irrelevant. If not, I'll also join you in feeling party-less.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

Is it possible that the GOP's descent in MAGAland and the Dems' descent into Bernieland could clear the path for a realistic alternative that stays within an arm's length of the political center?

Or will too many center-right, MAGA-averse people keep voting Republican to oppose the Berniecrats...and too many center-left Bernie-averse people keep voting Democrat to oppose MAGA?

I take exception with this characterization of the political spectrum. Conventionally speaking, Trump is to the left of Kemp and Youngkin.


Whatever MAGA is, some of the policy positions it has staked out are in no way far-right. From protectionism to entitlements being off the table. The economic policy at least is that of a blue dog Democrat.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

He would be a good candidate. I like him -- I also like Glenn Youngkin.

But I doubt either of them will happen. MAGA has pretty much full ownership of the GOP. As much as I'd like to think that will end (or at least recede) as Donald Trump rides off into the sunset, I'm not optimistic.

I may end up spending my golden years politically homeless.

MAGA probably wouldn't let Kemp win the Senate primary in Georgia even though he's the one that polls show would beat the Democratic candidate in the General fairly comfortably. If Kemp ran against the obvious idiot MTG in the primary, MAGA would probably help her to win the primary where she'd get stomped in the General. I suspect fearing that he'd lose the primary to an idiot like MTG is a factor in why Kemp decided not to run.

GOP senators fear Marjorie Taylor Greene could cost them Georgia Senate race

Republican senators are waving off firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) from jumping into next year’s Georgia Senate race, voicing concerns that some of the “crazy” things she’s said might…

thehill.com

In the 2028 primaries, maybe the answer is the 2016 primaries in reverse. In 2016 we had Trump against sane and reasonable Republican candidates. The sane Republicans split the sane Republican votes among themselves while the new and growing Trumpster/MAGA movement stuck with Trump. In 2028 the answer could be for someone like Kemp or Youngkin to run against several MAGA candidates. Let MAGA split their votes this time.

 

[snarlcakes]

It is certainly true, in general, that the Trump-era Republican Party has embraced cryptocurrency more than the Democratic Party has.

It makes some sense....as crypto is a phenomenon that is inherently subversive to government's monopoly control over the monetary levers.

One recent interesting and positive development is Governor Hobbs flipped her veto in Arizona on a Bitcoin reserve this week. Opposing Bitcoin isn't going to get anyone more votes, so I think a lot of Democrats will start coming out as at least neutral. The higher Bitcoin goes, the more wealth Bitcoiners have as well. Being against it seems like a political loser.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Isn't that ultimately what ends up mattering, though?

Political personalities come and go. FDR is dead. As are Ronald Reagan, LBJ, etal. The actuaries would say that it won't be all that long before Donald Trump joins them. And Bernie Sanders, too.

But the policies left in place by the individuals who implement them do not die off with them. FDR's imprint on American life is still very much present. Parts of it, anyway. And the same can be said, to varying degrees, for Reagan, LBJ.....and everybody else who has exerted influence over American public policy over history.

When I mention "Bernie" or "Trump", I'm thinking much less about those specific individuals than I am what they would aim to do.

Potentially but how much sway does someone's opinion have from the senate?

You mentioned presidents that have had a lasting influence. Are any senators on the list of people that have had a lasting influence?

Sander's influence is much more limited or indirect when compared to someone who has been president or is president. Whereas Sanders is dependent on many more dems taking up his opinion, Trump is currently telling republicans what their opinion is.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I take exception with this characterization of the political spectrum. Conventionally speaking, Trump is to the left of Kemp and Youngkin.


Whatever MAGA is, some of the policy positions it has staked out are in no way far-right. From protectionism to entitlements being off the table. The economic policy at least is that of a blue dog Democrat.

This is a fair criticism.

And, yes, trade protectionism has historically been more associated with a particular faction of the left/center-left -- tied to interests of organized labor. For most of my life, when somebody was making a case against free markets with free trade, competition from foreign nations (be it here or abroad), it was almost always somebody allied with labor unions.

As for the entitlement programs, I think the reticence to touch them is more about politics than ideology. They're still recognized as the "third rail of American politics".

One of many things that frustrates me about Donald Trump is that he's willing to take countless arrows over trade and tariffs, but refuses to take them over the single biggest thing that imperils our national well-being. If he's going to commit political suicide, it would really be nice if the country was able to gain something from it.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Potentially but how much sway does someone's opinion have from the senate?

You mentioned presidents that have had a lasting influence. Are any senators on the list of people that have had a lasting influence?

His influence is much more limited or indirect when compared to someone who has been president or is president.

Of course individual legislators have some degree of power and influence. Presidents can't do much about an agenda without bills to sign. And there's no such thing as legislation with a single legislator's name on it.

But, again, I'm using names in place of worldviews and visions. It isn't even about Bernie Sanders himself -- as a US Senator or as a prospective president/candidate for president.

Think of it using somebody else. Let's say that the GOP as a political entity settled on (more or less) embracing the worldview of Rand Paul. Or Thomas Massie. I see those two as being similar. And as the party won this or that election, something resembling their worldview became the gathering point for Republican presidents and Congresses as they structure and implement policies that will live on beyond them.

If that were to happen, then wouldn't Rand Paul's influence on American life have been a lot more than his lone vote in the Senate might suggest?

 

[larsIU]

Saggy tits do exist, so you must be correct.

I have standards man. You'd barely trip over them but they're there.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Of course individual legislators have some degree of power and influence. Presidents can't do much about an agenda without bills to sign. And there's no such thing as legislation with a single legislator's name on it.

But, again, I'm using names in place of worldviews and visions. It isn't even about Bernie Sanders himself -- as a US Senator or as a prospective president/candidate for president.

Think of it using somebody else. Let's say that the GOP as a political entity settled on (more or less) embracing the worldview of Rand Paul. Or Thomas Massie. I see those two as being similar. And as the party won this or that election, something resembling their worldview became the gathering point for Republican presidents and Congresses as they structure and implement policies that will live on beyond them.

If that were to happen, then wouldn't Rand Paul's influence on American life have been a lot more than his lone vote in the Senate might suggest?

Sanders has some influence but not in the same ballpark as Trump or past presidents is all I'm saying.

 

[hoot1]

Potentially but how much sway does someone's opinion have from the senate?

You mentioned presidents that have had a lasting influence. Are any senators on the list of people that have had a lasting influence?

Sander's influence is much more limited or indirect when compared to someone who has been president or is president. Whereas Sanders is dependent on many more dems taking up his opinion, Trump is currently telling republicans what their opinion is.

Have a question.

Is it historic events which occur during a period when a president happens to be in office that is important in creating policies, or does a president change history by initiating change.

Take FDR for example. How big a role did the Great Depression and WWIi play in setting the stage for the policy responses to these historic events? Also FDR by being in office for 15 years during this period with public sympathy yearning for leadership made new iniatives possible.

Two presidents whose timing weren't as fortunate would be Hoover and Carter. Interestingly events such as Watergate set the stage for Carter to be elected only to have events such as the Iranian hostage crisis pull the rug out from under him.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Have a question.

Is it historic events which occur during a period when a president happens to be in office that is important in creating policies, or does a president change history by initiating change.

Take FDR for example. How big a role did the Great Depression and WWIi play in setting the stage for the policy responses to these historic events? Also FDR by being in office for 15 years during this period with public sympathy yearning for leadership made new iniatives possible.

Two presidents whose timing weren't as fortunate would be Hoover and Carter. Interestingly events such as Watergate set the stage for Carter to be elected only to have events such as the Iranian hostage crisis pull the rug out from under him.

I would say those external factors can definitely play a part.

 

[hoot1]

No chance hoot. Not today. They got no RIZZZZZZZZZZZZ. No one knows them or watches them. Trump’s got all the coverage. Only Dem that can bring it is AOC

By RIZZZZ, presume you are talking about another celebrity style president a la Trump. AOC sorta fits the role.

In the past, have pondered the notion that once having had a celebrity style president the door will be wide open for more.

Only time will tell.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Sanders has some influence but not in the same ballpark as Trump or past presidents is all I'm saying.

I agree with this -- entirely. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Again, I'm using his name (and Trump's, and Rand Paul's) as a placeholder for a collection of ideas that comprise a governing vision. As far as the actual individual promoting and seeking to implement those ideas, it could be anybody...and would necessarily require a big group effort.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Sanders has some influence but not in the same ballpark as Trump or past presidents is all I'm saying.

biden was a progressive. biden was aoc. they're the same. his latest comment. it's always identity politics with the left now

"I wasn’t surprised, not because I didn’t think the vice president was the most qualified person to be president. She is. She’s qualified to be president of the United States of America. I was surprised, I was surprised because they went the route of, the sexist route, the whole route. I mean, this is a woman, she’s this, she’s that. I mean, it really, I’ve never seen quite as successful and a consistent campaign undercutting the notion that a woman couldn’t lead the country, and a woman of mixed race," Biden responded.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Your party is doing great, Hick. Don't change a thing. My only suggestion is you guys need to lean more into open borders and LGBQT issues.

Need more focus on things like this. It's the winning formula Dems. I promise.

 

[DANC]

They won't be the power brokers, any more than Bernie was in 16 or Bernie or Liz were in 20. Right now they're just the loudest with the most name recognition.

Bernie was a total power broker in 2020. Biden did everything Bernie wanted, and more.

 

[DANC]

He would be a good candidate. I like him -- I also like Glenn Youngkin.

But I doubt either of them will happen. MAGA has pretty much full ownership of the GOP. As much as I'd like to think that will end (or at least recede) as Donald Trump rides off into the sunset, I'm not optimistic.

I may end up spending my golden years politically homeless.

Youngkin is MAGA without appearing to be. Trump likes him, so he's got that going for him.

 

[reluctantnit]

Is it possible that the GOP's descent in MAGAland and the Dems' descent into Bernieland could clear the path for a realistic alternative that stays within an arm's length of the political center?

Or will too many center-right, MAGA-averse people keep voting Republican to oppose the Berniecrats...and too many center-left Bernie-averse people keep voting Democrat to oppose MAGA?

It's not lost on me that Donald Trump, with all his baggage, still managed to get 95% of the votes from Republicans.

It's long been a matter of absolute certainty that a viable 3rd party is an impossibility. I've always subscribed to that view. But nothing is permanent.

That's what I was wondering. The 2024 experience doesn't give me much hope. 2 "general unelectables" running against one another should've opened up a wide lane for a 3rd party run. The hurdles just appear too high.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

That's what I was wondering. The 2024 experience doesn't give me much hope. 2 "general unelectables" running against one another should've opened up a wide lane for a 3rd party run. The hurdles just appear too high.

Bobby was that third party and they wouldn’t even let him on the debate stage.

 

[UncleMark]

Bobby was that third party and they wouldn’t even let him on the debate stage.

Learned their lesson with Perot.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Learned their lesson with Perot.

and in the meantime and the in between time aint we got fun

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Learned their lesson with Perot.

I think he was rocking about a 1 percent support rating at the time. He couldn’t meet the minimum required support to participate by wide margin. However, somehow the long-time leftwing Democrat moonbat finagled a cabinet position in a Republican administration.

 

[dbmhoosier]

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

View embedded media

What happened to the character limit they used to have on Twitter? That was a very long rant from the loony MAGA wingnut! She’s not right in the head,

 

[Baller23Boogie]

View embedded media

Watch until the end.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Bernie was a total power broker in 2020. Biden did everything Bernie wanted, and more.

No. It was Clyburn. Clyburn gave us Biden, Harris and Justice Jackson. Obama gave us most of the Biden agenda by picking most of Biden’s cabinet and staff.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Is it possible that the GOP's descent in MAGAland and the Dems' descent into Bernieland could clear the path for a realistic alternative that stays within an arm's length of the political center?

Or will too many center-right, MAGA-averse people keep voting Republican to oppose the Berniecrats...and too many center-left Bernie-averse people keep voting Democrat to oppose MAGA?

It's not lost on me that Donald Trump, with all his baggage, still managed to get 95% of the votes from Republicans.

It's long been a matter of absolute certainty that a viable 3rd party is an impossibility. I've always subscribed to that view. But nothing is permanent.

I don’t consider MAGA-land a descent at all. From a public policy standpoint, MAGA is substantially mainstream Republican.

The problem is that people who hate Trump won’t say so, instead they whine about MAGA, rule of law, saving democracy, and a myriad of other things.

Saying “i Hate Trump” is good enough for me. I can understand that. What I can’t understand is all the resistance to Trumps efforts to fix government only because they don’t like Trump and now they don’t like Musk.

I think we are in very deep doodoo. Trump and Musk have good instincts about what needs to be done. Yet the resistance is winning through unprecedented numbers of lawsuits decided by judges who will find any way to stop Trump, (like the four Colorado Supreme Court justices) and some of that might stick. Then Congress. Ugh. What a useless body that has become. All it does these days is hold hearings and do investigations for no public purpose except to provide material for cable news. Oh and increase debt to hand out more benefits. All of it is nuts.

I have the sinking feeling that Trump is our last clear chance to Make America Great Enough so that the majority of us will believe we are on the right track again. We have been through more than a half century of making government responsive to scores of special interests. Now we are consumed by massive government, massive bureaucracy , massive laws, and massive debt. We finally have a president wanting to make government responsive to ordinary people.

Speaking of massive government, the biggest threat to rule of law is too damn much law.

See

Legalism Threatens Our Rule of Law – Larry P. Arnn

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch provides a coherent and engaging look at the tragedy of American overregulation.

lawliberty.org

 

[mcmurtry66]

No. It was Clyburn. Clyburn gave us Biden, Harris and Justice Jackson. Obama gave us most of the Biden agenda by picking most of Biden’s cabinet and staff.

Clyburn is just god awful.

 

[jet812]

All straight lines are curves in a closed universe.

Not those that have a starting & stopping point.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Not those that have a starting & stopping point.

Those are known as line segments, professor.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I don’t consider MAGA-land a descent at all. From a public policy standpoint, MAGA is substantially mainstream Republican.

The problem is that people who hate Trump won’t say so, instead they whine about MAGA, rule of law, saving democracy, and a myriad of other things.

Saying “i Hate Trump” is good enough for me. I can understand that. What I can’t understand is all the resistance to Trumps efforts to fix government only because they don’t like Trump and now they don’t like Musk.

I think we are in very deep doodoo. Trump and Musk have good instincts about what needs to be done. Yet the resistance is winning through unprecedented numbers of lawsuits decided by judges who will find any way to stop Trump, (like the four Colorado Supreme Court justices) and some of that might stick. Then Congress. Ugh. What a useless body that has become. All it does these days is hold hearings and do investigations for no public purpose except to provide material for cable news. Oh and increase debt to hand out more benefits. All of it is nuts.

I have the sinking feeling that Trump is our last clear chance to Make America Great Enough so that the majority of us will believe we are on the right track again. We have been through more than a half century of making government responsive to scores of special interests. Now we are consumed by massive government, massive bureaucracy , massive laws, and massive debt. We finally have a president wanting to make government responsive to ordinary people.

Speaking of massive government, the biggest threat to rule of law is too damn much law.

See

Legalism Threatens Our Rule of Law – Larry P. Arnn

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch provides a coherent and engaging look at the tragedy of American overregulation.

lawliberty.org

You used to be against increasing the power of the Executive when Obama was doing it, but now you're not. You know that a Democrat will be President one day. I bet you won't be for him/her doing the same as Trump is. He has done and is doing things that shouldn't be done by any President. Tariffs, EOs entirely for revenge purposes, pardoning J6ers that were convicted of attacking police, and much more. More than I thought he'd do. The chaos that the President creates also deserves tons of criticism.

What do you think of his economic "malaise" messaging in recent days?

I seriously don't know how you could think the President is motivated to "make government responsible to ordinary people." What could make you think that?

About that "right track" thing - far fewer think we're on the right track now than before the election:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country_2-6181.html#polls

 

[jet812]

Those are known as line segments, professor.

Touché.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You used to be against increasing the power of the Executive when Obama was doing it, but now you're not. You know that a Democrat will be President one day. I bet you won't be for him/her doing the same as Trump is. He has done and is doing things that shouldn't be done by any President. Tariffs, EOs entirely for revenge purposes, pardoning J6ers that were convicted of attacking police, and much more. More than I thought he'd do. The chaos that the President creates also deserves tons of criticism.

What do you think of his economic "malaise" messaging in recent days?

I seriously don't know how you could think the President is motivated to "make government responsible to ordinary people." What could make you think that?

About that "right track" thing - far fewer think we're on the right track now than before the election:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country_2-6181.html#polls

Wow.

You are combining many complaints here.

First, I don’t like all of the J6 pardons ( some are appropriate). But the President has absolute authority to pardon.

Congress has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs. Congress has delegated that authority to the president for “ national security” reasons. This is what Trump has relied on. He states it is a matter of national security to bring back manufacturing. I agree he is stretching that authority with some of the negotiations. But other presidents have done the same, only they haven’t shot their mouths off about it and the media wasn’t doing the faux outrage bit.

Of course the president has absolute authority to issue EO’s. Some of Trumps are not really EO’s but are showmanship. Some of his show is of the in your face variety. EO authority is well defined. I have no worries about those being abused.

I don’t think Trump is creating as much chaos as those who do anything and everything to resist. The judiciary is a ’ mess right now.

I haven’t heard the malaise comments. In fact I have heard the opposite from the cabinet members involved with the economy.

I absolutely think Trump is a populist. This was confirmed again with Brett Baier’s interview of the Trump appointees in health, food, Medicare and drugs. Their focus is all about healthy people and not about “misinformation,” big pharmaceutical, big medicine or more government. . That is encouraging . I also watched an interview with Wright, the energy secy. . He gets it. Energy is about serving people, not about all the special interests looking for various advantages. I don’t see any counter credible argument about populism.

Oh, you can rest assured that if we have another clown show like Biden and Obama throwing open the borders, imposing DEI instead of competency, or screwing with energy because climate change is our most serious national security threat, I’ll post in opposition, even if those folks do hold the authority. I haven’t changed. I would never oppose solid Republican initiatives just cuz I don’t like certain republicans.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Those are known as line segments, professor.

And they would technically still have the same curvature, just harder to notice the smaller the scale. Sort of like how if you walk from one end of your living room to the other, you are walking on a curve identical to the curvature of the earth, but on that scale it looks completely flat.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

And they would technically still have the same curvature, just harder to notice the smaller the scale. Sort of like how if you walk from one end of your living room to the other, you are walking on a curve identical to the curvature of the earth, but on that scale it looks completely flat.

On that note, I can run 66,616 mph.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Is it sad that so far Stephen A Smith is a better candidate than either party is likely to nominate?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Wow.

You are combining many complaints here.

First, I don’t like all of the J6 pardons ( some are appropriate). But the President has absolute authority to pardon.

Congress has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs. Congress has delegated that authority to the president for “ national security” reasons. This is what Trump has relied on. He states it is a matter of national security to bring back manufacturing. I agree he is stretching that authority with some of the negotiations. But other presidents have done the same, only they haven’t shot their mouths off about it and the media wasn’t doing the faux outrage bit.

Of course the president has absolute authority to issue EO’s. Some of Trumps are not really EO’s but are showmanship. Some of his show is of the in your face variety. EO authority is well defined. I have no worries about those being abused.

I don’t think Trump is creating as much chaos as those who do anything and everything to resist. The judiciary is a ’ mess right now.

I haven’t heard the malaise comments. In fact I have heard the opposite from the cabinet members involved with the economy.

I absolutely think Trump is a populist. This was confirmed again with Brett Baier’s interview of the Trump appointees in health, food, Medicare and drugs. Their focus is all about healthy people and not about “misinformation,” big pharmaceutical, big medicine or more government. . That is encouraging . I also watched an interview with Wright, the energy secy. . He gets it. Energy is about serving people, not about all the special interests looking for various advantages. I don’t see any counter credible argument about populism.

Oh, you can rest assured that if we have another clown show like Biden and Obama throwing open the borders, imposing DEI instead of competency, or screwing with energy because climate change is our most serious national security threat, I’ll post in opposition, even if those folks do hold the authority. I haven’t changed. I would never oppose solid Republican initiatives just cuz I don’t like certain republicans.

Congress delegated tariffs for national security EMERGENCIES. What actual emergency is he using to justify them?

No other President has issued so many EOs and so many that are outrageous on their face. He's expanding the power of the executive just like we complained Obama was doing - except he's doing it at a far greater rate to a far greater extent.

Trump has the authority to pardon and we have the right to point out that many of his pardons are outrageous.

From RFK on down in health, he's nominated anti-vax nuts. And RFK was and is a far left moonbat Democrat. I can't understand how he became so popular among a certain faction withing MAGA. Check that, I do. They're anti-vax too.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Congress delegated tariffs for national security EMERGENCIES. What actual emergency is he using to justify them?

No other President has issued so many EOs and so many that are outrageous on their face. He's expanding the power of the executive just like we complained Obama was doing - except he's doing it at a far greater rate to a far greater extent.

Trump has the authority to pardon and we have the right to point out that many of his pardons are outrageous.

From RFK on down in health, he's nominated anti-vax nuts. And RFK was and is a far left moonbat Democrat. I can't understand how he became so popular among a certain faction withing MAGA. Check that, I do. They're anti-vax too.

Issuing EO’s that terminate Biden’s EO’s don’t expand power.

Kennedy was right about Biden’s Covid vaccine mandates.

I have no idea wat an anti- vax nut is. But I do know what the driving purpose is of the HHS, which is to do everything possible to eliminate the unhealthy chronic diseases in the U.S. which the driving force of costs. We’ve had a decade of constant health care debates and all we got out of it was more benefits, more regulation, more criticism of insurance companies, and more costs. I think it is very refreshing to have serious government officials, who are in charge of health, speak about chronic diseases and the costs and causes. Many of the causes are poor life-style choices which is exploited by certain industries.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Issuing EO’s that terminate Biden’s EO’s don’t expand power.

Kennedy was right about Biden’s Covid vaccine mandates.

I have no idea wat an anti- vax nut is. But I do know what the driving purpose is of the HHS, which is to do everything possible to eliminate the unhealthy chronic diseases in the U.S. which the driving force of costs. We’ve had a decade of constant health care debates and all we got out of it was more benefits, more regulation, more criticism of insurance companies, and more costs. I think it is very refreshing to have serious government officials, who are in charge of health, speak about chronic diseases and the costs and causes. Many of the causes are poor life-style choices which is exploited by certain industries.

You should know by now that RFK is anti-vax and that he's a nut. You don't know that he was the leading moonbat that claimed GWB won the 2004 election due election fraud in Ohio? Should sound familiar - there was no evidence of that in 2004 as there was no evidence of significant election fraud in 2020.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

And they would technically still have the same curvature, just harder to notice the smaller the scale. Sort of like how if you walk from one end of your living room to the other, you are walking on a curve identical to the curvature of the earth, but on that scale it looks completely flat.