I vote based on platform and values. I will almost always vote for conservative values. I simply do not believe that the government is now or will ever have my best interests at heart. I will admit I am a bit jaded due to a career involving government contracting for the DoD from the supplier side.
Would you vote for the other party in the election if they had a better candidate?
- Thread starter 81usaf92
- Start date
I had someone I trust ask me a simple question that gobsmacked me. It made me re-examine and, in certain circumstances, change my own behavior. So I'm going to ask you the same question:
If you vote for your party only, and under any and all circumstances, what separates you from the lemmings who do the same on the other side?
I would in principle, however with everything so wrapped up in party platforms, I think you also have to consider how much leeway that candidate will have to be themselves vs vote and support the party line. There are multiple pieces of the Democratic Party platform that I simply cannot support and so could not vote for a candidate that would promote them, regardless of their “personal” views. Which essentially leaves me with 3rd party or no vote. For example I did not vote for President this past election. Sometimes I wish we had a more parliamentary type of political system, at least in regards to parties, where there is much greater diversity, a better chance to be able to confidently vote for a person or party that represents your views, as well as the plurality of parties forcing coalitions and compromises in the house and senate.
Ok folks, a couple of things.
1) Party platforms are not worth the paper they're printed on.
Seriously. Those are nothing more than promises they make at the Convention to appeal to a certain segment to try and get them on board. When the GOP decided to add an anti-abortion plank, they just worded it saying that the Prez would appoint judges who "believe in the sanctity of life." That got the pro-lifers on board and made NO commitment whatsoever to outlawing abortion...and enabled pro-choicers to see it as "won't be quick with the death penalty" if they wished.
You literally never hear of the platform after the Convention except the opposition tries to say "his/her position is X" (and nobody listens since both candidates paint the other in the most unfavorable light) or if the question comes up in a debate - and even the moderators have learned to not bring it up by saying "the party platform says."
2) The person chosen as VP SHOULD be someone who is more qualified to hold the office than the head of the ticket is.
I'm reminded of Coach Bryant saying all of his assistants were smarter than he is because he had no use for someone dumber than him on the job. The VP SHOULD be like that.
Ok - now apply names.
Pence? Yes, but it was a very low bar anyway
Kaine? No
Biden? Yes
Ryan? Toss-up
Palin? Hell no.
Edwards? No
Cheney? Absolutely
Kemp? Yes
Gore? Toss-up
Liebermann? Toss-up only because Gore had been VP for eight years, otherwise yes
Quayle? Hell no.
Bentsen? Yes
Ferraro? Absolutely not
Bush 41? Yes
Mondale? Yes
Dole in 76? Debatable
Agnew? No
Eagleton? No
Shriver? Toss-up
This is who we've had since the primaries became the route in 1972. But if you look in most of those cases (2000 on both sides was a clear exception), they basically add someone who brings either a section of the party with them (hopefully - it really doesn't work that way) or a geographical area where they are weak (Clinton picked Gore precisely because it said to Southerners, "This guy isn't McGovern-Dukakis-Mondale all over again" and he thus carried Ark, Tenn, and Georgia among other places).
Gray - unfortunately, as too many of my Democratic friends have said - "Nobody blows it quite like we do." The ideologues in both parties control the primary process because only the rabidly committed 10-15% vote there. Never forget that Trump did NOT win because he ran as a radical right-winger, even though he made a couple of those issues front and center (like the wall that will never be built). He won because Cruz and Rubio split the same voters and he'd garnered enough of the right wing to add to the more middle faction he was carrying. Carter won in 1976 because eight liberals divided the vote and the other conservative in the race was George Wallace, whom Carter figured if he could deprive of the nomination a bunch of the left-wing would hop on board as a "thank you" for ridding the Wallace threat. Dukakis won because Gore and Gephardt divided the white middle class votes on Super Tuesday and in Illinois and Michigan (Jesse won MI and was 2nd in IL to home state Senator Paul Simon).
(Trump understood - as did GHW Bush in 88 - you make an early dart for the hard core right and then fade back towards the center).
That said, I cross my fingers and hope the Dems can put up a decent enough candidate that I can support or that the GOP can torpedo Trump in the primaries.
Of course, if Trump resigns then all bets are off.
1) Party platforms are not worth the paper they're printed on.
Seriously. Those are nothing more than promises they make at the Convention to appeal to a certain segment to try and get them on board. When the GOP decided to add an anti-abortion plank, they just worded it saying that the Prez would appoint judges who "believe in the sanctity of life." That got the pro-lifers on board and made NO commitment whatsoever to outlawing abortion...and enabled pro-choicers to see it as "won't be quick with the death penalty" if they wished.
You literally never hear of the platform after the Convention except the opposition tries to say "his/her position is X" (and nobody listens since both candidates paint the other in the most unfavorable light) or if the question comes up in a debate - and even the moderators have learned to not bring it up by saying "the party platform says."
2) The person chosen as VP SHOULD be someone who is more qualified to hold the office than the head of the ticket is.
I'm reminded of Coach Bryant saying all of his assistants were smarter than he is because he had no use for someone dumber than him on the job. The VP SHOULD be like that.
Ok - now apply names.
Pence? Yes, but it was a very low bar anyway
Kaine? No
Biden? Yes
Ryan? Toss-up
Palin? Hell no.
Edwards? No
Cheney? Absolutely
Kemp? Yes
Gore? Toss-up
Liebermann? Toss-up only because Gore had been VP for eight years, otherwise yes
Quayle? Hell no.
Bentsen? Yes
Ferraro? Absolutely not
Bush 41? Yes
Mondale? Yes
Dole in 76? Debatable
Agnew? No
Eagleton? No
Shriver? Toss-up
This is who we've had since the primaries became the route in 1972. But if you look in most of those cases (2000 on both sides was a clear exception), they basically add someone who brings either a section of the party with them (hopefully - it really doesn't work that way) or a geographical area where they are weak (Clinton picked Gore precisely because it said to Southerners, "This guy isn't McGovern-Dukakis-Mondale all over again" and he thus carried Ark, Tenn, and Georgia among other places).
Gray - unfortunately, as too many of my Democratic friends have said - "Nobody blows it quite like we do." The ideologues in both parties control the primary process because only the rabidly committed 10-15% vote there. Never forget that Trump did NOT win because he ran as a radical right-winger, even though he made a couple of those issues front and center (like the wall that will never be built). He won because Cruz and Rubio split the same voters and he'd garnered enough of the right wing to add to the more middle faction he was carrying. Carter won in 1976 because eight liberals divided the vote and the other conservative in the race was George Wallace, whom Carter figured if he could deprive of the nomination a bunch of the left-wing would hop on board as a "thank you" for ridding the Wallace threat. Dukakis won because Gore and Gephardt divided the white middle class votes on Super Tuesday and in Illinois and Michigan (Jesse won MI and was 2nd in IL to home state Senator Paul Simon).
(Trump understood - as did GHW Bush in 88 - you make an early dart for the hard core right and then fade back towards the center).
That said, I cross my fingers and hope the Dems can put up a decent enough candidate that I can support or that the GOP can torpedo Trump in the primaries.
Of course, if Trump resigns then all bets are off.
What's really weird is that we have more forms of communication, the best educated electorate we've ever had, the most ways to find out about every single candidate (even see video on also rans)........and we still nominate terrible candidates.
Of course - and Dr Tidewater can address this better than I - we had a truckload of mediocrity running this country starting with Martin Van Buren and continuing almost unbroken through the end of Chester Arthur's term (he was the last one - IIRC - to actually LOSE his effort at renomination while an incumbent....although both Truman and LBJ withdrew facing hostility).
Yes. I’m nonpartisan. Prior to 2008 I had only voted for Rep Presidential Candidates.
But a lot of my views changed between 2004-2008 and I became open to voting for Dem Candidates.
I could not in good conscience vote for either party in 2016. Sorry.... just couldn’t.
I would have voted for Bernie Sanders had the Dem party backed him instead of Slithery Clinton but they stupidly backed the wrong horse.
But a lot of my views changed between 2004-2008 and I became open to voting for Dem Candidates.
I could not in good conscience vote for either party in 2016. Sorry.... just couldn’t.
I would have voted for Bernie Sanders had the Dem party backed him instead of Slithery Clinton but they stupidly backed the wrong horse.
I think that's a lot of it.
If we had a written test in which supporters of both or either candidate had to chose the important positions of the candidate they were going to vote for in order to be eligible to for president, that would eliminate a lot of the "he's handsome" (<cough> Trudeau) or ""he's going to make America great again," without actually defines what they means or what policy he is going to pursue to "make America great again."
To me, it would be hysterical to watch potential voters get disqualified by missing questions like:
1. Which candidate has served as Secretary of State?
a. Hillary Clinton
b. Donald Trump
c. Mickey Mouse
2. Which candidate has declared bankruptcy multiple times?
a. Hillary Clinon
b. Donald Trump
c. Mickey Mouse
3. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution means the Federal government can do whatever it wants to do as long as Congress says the policy is pursuant to "the general welfare" of America.
a. True
b. False
I'd pay good money to watch potential voters disqualified for missing those. Like more than watching The Hexagon.
No.
Voters who are misinformed, brain-washed, and/or ignored by the media.
The media who puts ratings above all else.
I lay the blame 100% on the media for the condition this country is in right now.
I have to disagree with that. There are plenty of responsible media sources available but voters have gotten lazy and gravitate to biased sources that pander to their views.
A political science professor of mine once said that the us electorate is more incoherent on actual political beliefs but roughly 80% of them will vote by party affiliation. I’m kinda feeling that is pretty accurate.
That's about right. That squares with the old idea that each candidate starts with 40% and builds from there. Only in a colossal rout (1936, 1964, 1984) does that change. There's a small group of 3-5% that just vote for who they hear is winning because they want to be with the winner. (This is part of why it's easy to dismiss the old "but she won the popular vote" argument. She did but how many votes did she get on the basis of folks hearing for six months that she was going to win it in a rout?)
We DO have lazy voters - that much is true.
On the flip side, we also have a media that through their lackadaisical coverage can convince people:
-Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War (untrue)
-Sarah Palin said she could see Alaska from her house (untrue)
-Dukakis lost because of a racist Willie Horton commercial (very few Americans ever saw that commercial)
- Clinton made a spectacular comeback in New Hampshire in 1992 (he was leading, imploded, and lost by nine points)
- Bush 41 made a spectacular comeback in New Hampshire in 1988 (uh, he was leading the whole time)
- Mondale won a great victory in March 1984...on the day he LOST 7 of 9 primaries, most of them big huge margins
So there's plenty of blame to go around.
We can blame the parties for the system, the voters for being lazy, the media for not getting the facts right (or in some cases at least CLEAR)
But unfortunately we have to live with it.
Ditto this. I happily voted for GOP in `00 and `04, held my nose in `08 and went GOP, but libertarian since (and probably henceforth and forevermore). I most closely (though not entirely) align with their views A specific event changed between those two elections that shifted me away from GOP which I won't go into now. I voted Rubio in the GA primary, I would have considered Bernie Sanders in 16 had he been allowed the nomination. I've voted D in the past, mostly local elections, and in part because I know the candidates personally (Mayor of Oxford MS when I lived there, mayor of Athens-Clarke County while I've lived here), and numerous other elections. So yeah, if the Democrats, GOP, Libertarians, Communist Party or "The Rent is too Damn High" Party put up a candidate more qualified than the other party, I'd happily vote for him or her.
OK...for discussion purposes......what major TV stations/channels/networks should the folks be watching?
Notice I said major, because if you reply with anything other than a major network, you've made my point.
One of my favourite shows!
But seriously.....do you think the average voter evens knows about this network?
EDIT: Looks like it's a show on HBO?
Latest threads
-
Chattanooga VW Plant Union Vote- Started by 92tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Political Meme - Cartoon/Joke Thread...Part XX
- Started by Bazza
- Replies: 9
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry
- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-