Would you vote for the other party in the election if they had a better candidate?

Absolutely.

The party system has gone completely haywire.

I changed my voter registration YEARS ago to NPA (No Party Affiliation).

It's usually picking the lesser of two evils - hope that changes at some point but not holding my breath.

For me every party is the other party.

Yes, without question. Went 3rd party but seeing the disaster we have in the WH I wish there wouldve been a candidate on the other side I could've supported. Both made me queasy.

Voted for Doug Jones in the December election. Unless things change I’ll probably vote Libertarian again in 2020.

I'm still waiting to see what a "better candidate" would look like.

I went Libertarian in 2016. But I knew Trump would carry Alabama even if he shot Nick Saban.

Had I lived in a swing state, I’d have held my nose and voted for Clinton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

81usaf92 said:

I identify myself as a swing voter, but I keep hearing “vote your conscious” or “that person is unqualified” more and more as time as goes on. But I see races are still very close, and wonder if these remarks are more aimed at swing voters or people affiliated with parties.

So would you go against party affiliation if there was a better candidate across the aisle or just stay at home?

For the record:

My voting history...

General:
12- Obama
16- Nick Saban

Primary
16- Rubio

Alabama primary
17-Brooks
Run off- strange

Alabama senate election
17- Jones

Click to expand...

Depends on the definition of "better". I vote based on the stated platform of the candidates.

81usaf92 said:

I identify myself as a swing voter, but I keep hearing “vote your conscious” or “that person is unqualified” more and more as time as goes on. But I see races are still very close, and wonder if these remarks are more aimed at swing voters or people affiliated with parties.

So would you go against party affiliation if there was a better candidate across the aisle or just stay at home?

For the record:

My voting history...

General:
12- Obama
16- Nick Saban

Primary
16- Rubio

Alabama primary
17-Brooks
Run off- strange

Alabama senate election
17- Jones

Click to expand...

I gave up when the two political parties decided that nominating someone who was pretending be married to the President equaled experience (a truly stupid notion that few were honest enough to come out and say) and then the other party said, "Hold mah beer" and nominated the most unqualified candidate in American history.

Why should I give either party the time of day after that nonsense?

I know it has always been fashionable (in my lifetime, which has been conducted totally under the insane primary system we now have) to complain about the candidates. But in terms of the ones that won the nomination, I can't say ANY of them were really unqualified had they won. The one with the fewest paper qualifications was Obama, but he DID have some rhetorical gifts and he understood inspirational leadership, which is far more important than "he's a businessman who has met a payroll." Ford, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Bush, Dukakis, Clinton, Dole, Gore, Bush 43, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Obama........each had strengths and weaknesses and they had varying degrees of experience and gifts.

I can't say that about either candidate in 2016 and YES - I've said 100 times HRC was the more qualified candidate, but hell, half of the Tidefans posters are more qualified to hold the Presidency than Trump is, so that's hardly an asset.

I haven't voted for a major party candidate since 2004, and I doubt I ever will again. The only question is whether I'll actually waste the time to go into the booth. It's important for local elections, it's meaningless and embarrassing for the Presidency.

I have never had a party affiliation and consider myself a centrist. Being a centrist these days won't win you many friends, but I find Sharpton and Pelosi as politically repulsive as Ryan and McConnell. I am right and you are wrong is what our country has come to, the country's moral compass has been lost and that is why we have Trump.

I vote for the person I think will do the best job. I don't care that much about party affiliation, as both sides are in it for power.

I vote Democratic across the board.

selmaborntidefan said:

I can't say that about either candidate in 2016 and YES - I've said 100 times HRC was the more qualified candidate, but hell, half of the Tidefans posters are more qualified to hold the Presidency than Trump is, so that's hardly an asset.

Click to expand...

HRC could not beat out an unqualified Senator from Illinois and you think she is more qualified than Trump? I will agree with you that Trump is an idiot and SHOULD NOT be president but Hillary is not, was never qualified for POTUS.

-----

If there are good, quality candidates out there then I will vote for that person regardless of the side of the aisle the sit on.

selmaborntidefan said:

I gave up when the two political parties decided that nominating someone who was pretending be married to the President equaled experience (a truly stupid notion that few were honest enough to come out and say)

Click to expand...

Even more stupid is failing to acknowledge her experience as a senator and SecState.

Have a facepalm.

At one time I would definitely vote for a candidate from another party. Now with politics so dirty, I wouldn't trust a politician from the opposing party no matter what their platform or ideas. The last 8 years has so divided us it is going to take a while to undo the damage.

I feel party affiliation is akin to a mental disease.
It causes otherwise generally rational people to think and act in inexplicable ways.

I'm glad I'm free of it.

What does qualify one to be president, beyond being 35 and born here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jthomas666 said:

Even more stupid is failing to acknowledge her experience as a senator and SecState.

Have a facepalm.

Click to expand...

I didn’t fail to acknowledge it. But part of her whole “I’m experienced” thing was based on “she was married to the guy who held the job.” Susan Estrich - whom I’ve always enjoyed and who should know better - said in 2008 that one of Hillary’s accomplishments was “she has lived in the White House.” Hell, that makes Barbara Bush more qualified than nearly anyone ever.

And now I’m watching the very same people who pretend “experience” mattered say they want Michelle Obama or Oprah to run for Prez.

Besides, experience only matters if you were any good in the first place. Yes, she was Secretary of State but George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, or James Baker she was not.

And she had more “experience” in 2008 even setting aside she had not been Secretary of State then - but that same party didn’t nominate her.

Crimson1967 said:

What does qualify one to be president, beyond being 35 and born here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Those are the minimal paper qualifications but I would hope we’d insist on something more. It’s no accident we generally had better nominees under the old system before the primaries became the major route for delegate selection. Now one can become the nominee merely by raising or having a lot of money, a well known name, and friends in the press to spin results.

While it may seem I’ve picked on Hillary, we can put both of the Bush boys in the same category. In 1998, before he’d even completed a term as governor, Bush 43 was a far and away front runner for pretty much similar reasons to HRC - Daddy has been in the job and he had a familiar name. The fact nobody could tell you a single thing the guy stood for or had done didn’t matter. Jeb was even worse. He was leading because of his name. Trump, too.

Sarah Palin met the paper qualifications but does anyone want her as President? Quayle? Ferraro? Agnew? (Just a note: Ferarro had fewer paper qualifications than the others but anyone who saw her press conference on her husband’s taxes had to be impressed. Even the GOP guys running the Convention observed she was stellar).

More to the point, we nominate jokes anymore. Just find a candidate with parallel paper qualifications to who we nominate and imagine them as the nominee. In 2008, it would have been hard to find any Senator less qualified than Obama to nominate. But at least he could give a speech & took advice. The GOP retired that cup in 16. Trump wasn’t even the most qualified business person who had never held office running (Carly Fiorina didn’t file four bankruptcies).

I don’t take any joy in this at all. It’s embarrassing. And what I fear is going to happen is that the Ds will arrogantly assume (after they wipe out the GOP and take the House this fall) that “Now that everyone has seen Trump as a clown, they’d never vote to keep him so let’s make sure to nominate the most extreme liberal we can find so that when we win we can get it done.” Then they’ll nominate a nutbag and Trump will win again. This is pretty much how both Nixon and Reagan got re-elected (people naively assume Reagan was popular throughout but he wasn’t - he bumbled through 82 and 83 and was vulnerable....until they picked the one candidate that allowed him to say, “Hey, remember how bad things were before me? Hostages, gas lines, misery index?”).

I hope the GOP is at least trying to figure out how to eliminate Trump in the primaries, but I have as little faith in them as in the Ds to actually accomplish anything. (Hint to GOP: you get behind ONE candidate....)

Well said, Bill. I totally agree that if the Dems pick a candidate way left of center then they are toast in 2020. The Dems somehow have to portray its candidate and their party as the choice of reason, not threats, ridiculous promises, and blatant lies. It would also help, IMO, to have a candidate free of any type scandal. Tall order indeed in politics, to find a qualified person with decent morals. Good luck.