Tea Party said:

---

I asked this same question on another thread and surprisingly most people said they would vote for anyone with an R by their name because they did not want anyone with a D by their name to win.

I used Fetterman as an example if he switched parties and ran as an R and several said said they would still vote R.

It was amazing seeing how a lot of people don't have a line but just blindly vote for their team.

---

More amazing that people waste their time and votes on people who go to Washington to protest vs accomplish.

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I asked this same question on another thread and surprisingly most people said they would vote for anyone with an R by their name because they did not want anyone with a D by their name to win.

I used Fetterman as an example if he switched parties and ran as an R and several said said they would still vote R.

It was amazing seeing how a lot of people don't have a line but just blindly vote for their team.

---

So...would you not vote for an R candidate that votes 70% towards your views, even if you knew it would help a D candidate that votes 2% towards your views?

---

I will never vote for a D, and if you could show me a R candidate that advocates and votes for 70% of my small gov conservative views I would crawl over glass to campaign and vote for them. Not just 70% talk, but actual action.

The current crop of R's actions likely align with less than 50% of my views at best. They do little to nothing to advocate for bringing conservative agendas to the floor and when a rare important vote does get a chance at a vote there often is so much pork added that it significantly dilutes any gains.

And I am still overwhelmingly going to vote R, but not the instances where the R populace let's a terrible candidate win the primary when there was a significantly stronger alternative.

Quote:

---

And this is why we are where we are.

The polarization of our politics where there is now ZERO compromise or reaching across the aisle and voting with the opposite party.

---

And you can largely think Democrats for that. I actually voted for some Dems way back in the day - Ralph Hall to be specific.

However, the current Democrat party has moved so far left that they are openly Marxist now.

As always, the following applies anytime this discussion comes up and someone tries to "both sides" this topic:




It's simply not safe for us to compromise with Democrats so I will always vote against them now almost no matter what. A Republican candidate in the general would have to be an egregiously bad candidate for me to abstain.

That would leave me not voting!

e=mc2 said:

---

If it's a ****ty Republican, I'll leave it blank. I will never vote for Democrat for the rest of my life.

---

. I used that tactic and helped get Dora the Explorer elected. Don't recommend

YNWA.2013 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I asked this same question on another thread and surprisingly most people said they would vote for anyone with an R by their name because they did not want anyone with a D by their name to win.

I used Fetterman as an example if he switched parties and ran as an R and several said said they would still vote R.

It was amazing seeing how a lot of people don't have a line but just blindly vote for their team.

---

the extremes of each party to take control. It is now political suicide to vote against your party. And with no term limits, politicians will do anything to stay in power.

There is no center anymore, only left and right

---

There may be "extremists" in the Republican party but they are not in control. The Republican party is still squarely just slightly to the right of center.

Just because the regressive left as fallen off the extremist cliff doesn't mean the Republican party has run to the right.

I'm not voting for their love life. Ideally they are a choirboy but policy matters most.

BTKAG97 said:

---

YNWA.2013 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I asked this same question on another thread and surprisingly most people said they would vote for anyone with an R by their name because they did not want anyone with a D by their name to win.

I used Fetterman as an example if he switched parties and ran as an R and several said said they would still vote R.

It was amazing seeing how a lot of people don't have a line but just blindly vote for their team.

---

the extremes of each party to take control. It is now political suicide to vote against your party. And with no term limits, politicians will do anything to stay in power.

There is no center anymore, only left and right

---

There may be "extremists" in the Republican party but they are not in control. The Republican party is still squarely just slightly to the right of center.

Just because the regressive left as fallen off the extremist cliff doesn't mean the Republican party has run to the right.

---

That's your typical "extreme right wing" moniker that Europe uses which Democrats have adopted here. There is nothing extreme about it. The vast majority of it goes right back to the meme above - our positions have never changed. The left just went even more left.

Hell, the extreme right in Europe are still far left, socialists; they just want their borders shut down so they can preserve their country specific culture.

Bondag said:

---

I'm not voting for their love life. Ideally they are a choirboy but policy matters most.

---

Yeah, that ended with Bill Clinton. Don't give 2 ****s who they pork as long as they aren't a pedo. That ship sailed long ago.

BTKAG97 said:

---

YNWA.2013 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I asked this same question on another thread and surprisingly most people said they would vote for anyone with an R by their name because they did not want anyone with a D by their name to win.

I used Fetterman as an example if he switched parties and ran as an R and several said said they would still vote R.

It was amazing seeing how a lot of people don't have a line but just blindly vote for their team.

---

the extremes of each party to take control. It is now political suicide to vote against your party. And with no term limits, politicians will do anything to stay in power.

There is no center anymore, only left and right

---

There may be "extremists" in the Republican party but they are not in control. The Republican party is still squarely just slightly to the right of center.

Just because the regressive left as fallen off the extremist cliff doesn't mean the Republican party has run to the right.

---

Exactly. D's make significant gains to the left when in power and the R's gain little to nothing to the right when in power.

If you wargame the "vote R no matter what" strategy long term, the only way it works is if the R's win significanly more elections than the D's over time, OR you believe the GOP is going to suddenly have an awakening to start governing conservatively and aggressively.

I'm a huge advocate of abandoning the status quo game as is and breaking the taboo that politics shouldn't be discussed amongst peers in public. When people in large quantities start openly talking politcs with each other, we take power away from our leaders and the MSM. That may be enough to have people overcome the brainwashing and start caring for holding their leaders accountable and to the same standards.

Had never voted democrat before covid, but after seeing how they handled that I'll 100% never even consider voting dem going forward. If it's a ****ty republican in a safe race, I'll leave it blank or vote third party/write in. If it's a ****ty Republican in a competitive race (likely Paxton this year), I'll hold my nose and vote for them to keep the Dems out of power.

YouBet said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

YNWA.2013 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I asked this same question on another thread and surprisingly most people said they would vote for anyone with an R by their name because they did not want anyone with a D by their name to win.

I used Fetterman as an example if he switched parties and ran as an R and several said said they would still vote R.

It was amazing seeing how a lot of people don't have a line but just blindly vote for their team.

---

the extremes of each party to take control. It is now political suicide to vote against your party. And with no term limits, politicians will do anything to stay in power.

There is no center anymore, only left and right

---

There may be "extremists" in the Republican party but they are not in control. The Republican party is still squarely just slightly to the right of center.

Just because the regressive left as fallen off the extremist cliff doesn't mean the Republican party has run to the right.

---

That's your typical "extreme right wing" moniker that Europe uses which Democrats have adopted here. There is nothing extreme about it. The vast majority of it goes right back to the meme above - our positions have never changed. The left just went even more left.

Hell, the extreme right in Europe are still far left, socialists; they just want their borders shut down so they can preserve their country specific culture.

---

The meme is flawed because it moves the center point - though admittedly it's a mean, median, mode argument.

IMO - I believe it's best (or easier to follow) if you set a concrete base to define the "center" and not allow it to be fluid.

BTKAG97 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

YNWA.2013 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

I asked this same question on another thread and surprisingly most people said they would vote for anyone with an R by their name because they did not want anyone with a D by their name to win.

I used Fetterman as an example if he switched parties and ran as an R and several said said they would still vote R.

It was amazing seeing how a lot of people don't have a line but just blindly vote for their team.

---

the extremes of each party to take control. It is now political suicide to vote against your party. And with no term limits, politicians will do anything to stay in power.

There is no center anymore, only left and right

---

There may be "extremists" in the Republican party but they are not in control. The Republican party is still squarely just slightly to the right of center.

Just because the regressive left as fallen off the extremist cliff doesn't mean the Republican party has run to the right.

---

That's your typical "extreme right wing" moniker that Europe uses which Democrats have adopted here. There is nothing extreme about it. The vast majority of it goes right back to the meme above - our positions have never changed. The left just went even more left.

Hell, the extreme right in Europe are still far left, socialists; they just want their borders shut down so they can preserve their country specific culture.

---

The meme is flawed because it moves the center point - though admittedly it's a mean, median, mode argument.

IMO - I believe it's best (or easier to follow) if you set a concrete base to define the "center" and not allow it to be fluid.

---

I justify that by recognizing the Republicans party has only moved to the left over time, thus moving the center to the left. The "Me" guy is the actual conservatives who has never wavered.

Anyone who claims to be a centrist should be voting Republican because that's where the center is now. Anyone who says they are "undecided" is an unprincipled moron that shouldn't be voting, period.

So many people on here are saying that they will continue to just blindly vote Republican because of how bad the Democratic party is.

Generally, I get the sentiment and could never envision a world in which I vote for a modern day democrat.

But I hate the idea that every election is essentially, "Well, this is better than the alternative," rather than, "Man, this is a guy I believe will represent me well, uphold what he says, and work earnestly to make life better for those in this district/state/country." How do we get to a place where we are voting for the latter, rather than the former? Or are we too far gone at this point? With the was donor money continues to increase with every election, it seems impossible to get back to a place where politicians serve the people rather than serving big tech/big pharma/big business/whatever other big money donor that buys their influence.

Zachary Klement said:

---

So many people on here are saying that they will continue to just blindly vote Republican because of how bad the Democratic party is.

Generally, I get the sentiment and could never envision a world in which I vote for a modern day democrat.

But I hate the idea that every election is essentially, "Well, this is better than the alternative," rather than, "Man, this is a guy I believe will represent me well, uphold what he says, and work earnestly to make life better for those in this district/state/country." How do we get to a place where we are voting for the latter, rather than the former? Or are we too far gone at this point? With the was donor money continues to increase with every election, it seems impossible to get back to a place where politicians serve the people rather than serving big tech/big pharma/big business/whatever other big money donor that buys their influence.

---

I hate it too, but we are too far gone. I vote knowing it's rearguard action at best.

Whomever best supports my views and policies. I refuse to make myself a 1-party or single issue voter. I vote fiscally and socially conservative with little to no government interference. On occasion, a D candidate has fit that mold better, but it's generally R

In a general election, I'm just as often voting against a candidate as I'm voting for a candidate. In a primary, I try to pick candidates that align with my views, but I also consider electability.

Primary or general election, there can be disqualifying factors. If I had been of voting age in the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election, I would've voted for Edwin Edward's over David Duke. More modernly, if I was a Democrat in Maine, there's no way I'd vote for Platner even if I agreed with his entire platform.

I've had only one opportunity to vote for the person I actually wanted to win an election. I have been voting for 63 years and invariably end up voting against the candidate I perceive to be the worst choice. As a result, I've had very few opportunities to vote for a Democrat.

The ghost of Ann Richards checks into this topic.

Tea Party said:

---

I asked this same question on another thread and surprisingly most people said they would vote for anyone with an R by their name because they did not want anyone with a D by their name to win.

I used Fetterman as an example if he switched parties and ran as an R and several said said they would still vote R.

It was amazing seeing how a lot of people don't have a line but just blindly vote for their team.

---

I have a line when choosing between two R candidates.

And, theoretically, there is a line between choosing between an R and a D candidate. Problem is that I have yet to find a D candidate that is anywhere close to the line. I'm talking "can't see them with a telescope from the line". So, yeah.....between an R and a D, it's R all day long even if the R may not be the R I particularly want.

The whole "character" issue is stupid IMO, and one that continually keeps R's behind the 8 ball. If you start out with the premise that today's politicians are exactly like politicians from every era prior to us and eliminate the character aspect by assuming they are all scum, then you can focus on their positions, how they vote, etc. and land on the candidate that is going to do the best job overall.

Problem is that too many R's have this absolutely stupid notion that a our politicians should be genteel and play by the Marquis de Queensbury rules and if they don't then they aren't worthy of a vote. It is about the dumbest mentality there is, but yet it won't die even if it means that the R's will waltz a POS democrat right into office because of "principles". And then they are shocked and appalled that the democrat operates exactly in a democrat manner that is the exact opposite of the desires of the republicans that helped them get elected.

On a single issue aspect - any politician that does anything that goes against 2A for me only gets my vote when they are the last person standing and have an R by their name. Otherwise their opponent most likely gets the vote. I also generally start voting the challenger once a candidate has a few terms in office out of principle alone.

HarleySpoon said:

---

The ghost of Ann Richards checks into this topic.

---

I said in another recent thread (about Guiliani) that sometimes the person defines their times and sometimes the times define the person. That applies to Richards, too, in my view.

I knew Ann, not well but was around her often enough. She was very personable, very witty, funny, self deprecating, comfortable in her own skin and civil. Hard to dislike her persona. (Not that I ever voted for her.) OTOH, she benefitted greatly from the times. (As did Bill Clinton, but that is another subject.)

Texas was coming out of an economic crash, dot.com bubble was gearing up, development was going on with Austin becoming a prime destination for opportunity.

Easy to be the leader during good times.

aggiehawg said:

---

HarleySpoon said:

---

The ghost of Ann Richards checks into this topic.

---

I said in another recent thread (about Guiliani) that sometimes the person defines their times and sometimes the times define the person. That applies to Richards, too, in my view.

I knew Ann, not well but was around her often enough. She was very personable, very witty, funny, self deprecating, comfortable in her own skin and civil. Hard to dislike her persona. (Not that I ever voted for her.) OTOH, she benefitted greatly from the times. (As did Bill Clinton, but that is another subject.)

Texas was coming out of an economic crash, dot.com bubble was gearing up, development was going on with Austin becoming a prime destination for opportunity.

Easy to be the leader during good times.

---

I guess my comment was meant to convey that Clayton Williams led her in the governor's race by between 11% and 20% until his "rape comment." And, she won by 2% after his rape comment. The two parties, even in Texas, were much more similar at that point and one could vote the candidate's character without having to worry about going over the abyss.

Politicians are means to an end. I don't need them to be saints. I need them to vote for policies I support and in the interests of my rights and liberties and not steal absurd amounts of tax dollars or launder them to their political Allies in the process, but I can actually accept that some BS is going to happen so long as the critical matters of voting consistent with my views comes first.

Quote:

---

The two parties, even in Texas, were much more similar at that point and one could vote the candidate's character without having to worry about going over the abyss.

---

Fully agree. Dems had liberal, moderate and conservative wings of the party back then. So did the Republicans, although not that much in Texas. A moderate Republican in Texas would have been deemed a staunch conservative elsewhere.

Sadly, at least for the Democrat Party nationwide, that is no longer the case as the most radical progressives are overrepresented within their party leadership.

Huge derail here: Our discussion caused me to review John Tower's evolving political positions during his time in the senate....because he was such an early outlier leading up to the era you and I were discussing. Anyway....I did not remember that he died in an airline crash. Wow...that's pretty rare. Told you it was a derail.

Disclaimer. My answer is purely hypothetical as I've not voted in at least 30 years. In theory it would be some combination of policies, character and proven delivery.

And the belief that they will work to deliver maximum value to me as a shareholder / taxpayer while adhering to the same values they tell me I need to live by.

So many votes in Congress go just by party line, it's hard to have a nuanced view of two candidates for Congress who are from different parties.

These days, the battle is at the primary level. Once past that on the national and even state level, you're mostly voting for a party platform rather than a candidate.

A non-lawyer always gets my first look!

My vote helped get Dan Crenshaw primaried in March. You have to use the primaries.

Socialism, and the spiraling downfall of our country that socialism and the marxist tactics democrats engage in represent, is the ultimate push. Therefore, voting for a socialist/democrat, or abstaining from voting in a general election because the opposition to the socialist candidate has a flaw I don't like, can't happen. You can't wait until the general and decide to abstain.

I personally am done with the "well we have to vote for the Republican because otherwise the democrat will win". It's a lose/lose proposition for the country. The GOP has backstabbed and betrayed their base so many times that "well the democrat would be worse" no longer has any effect on me.

Mine is all policy based, what I am in favor for my county, state, and country…I couldn't care less about one's personal issues, only if they are effective in the policies I support. I am conservative so I will vote R every time…if a politician doesn't do what they say and in fact does the opposite then what they campaigned on, then I will vote for their primary opponent if there is one…I will never vote D because their policies do not align with me, plain and simple…they have moved so far left, they are unrecognizable…heck, Clinton and Trump are more aligned politically, than Clinton is with Biden/Harris, think about that for a second.

MelvinUdall said:

---

Clinton and Trump are more aligned politically, than Clinton is with Biden/Harris, think about that for a second.

---

go watch Bill Clinton's 1996 state of the union address. It full on "ultra-maga extremist".


today's democrat party is ultra progressive and full Marxist. They are so far removed from what they used to be. They hate this country and hope & change to destroy it and build back better into something totally different. there's too many who will vote blue no matter who combined with efforts for a path to amnesty and no voter id, etc. for replacement voters too.

unfortunately, in this two party system, abstaining from voting because the conservative opposition said or did x, y, or z or because of past performances by ineffective feckless conservatives should not be an option. use the primaries and get effective anti-socialist opposition where possible.

Yes, and why I said the dem party is unrecognizable and why I wouldn't for any Dem, because if there was a Clinton type dem that I share 70% policy with, they would still provide one more congressional seat or senate seat which gives them an advantage to get their agenda through.

I will say I have never voted for any one, (R) or (D), that had a fake girlfriend.

And doesn't look like I'm going to have to do it any time soon.

docaggie said:

---

So many votes in Congress go just by party line, it's hard to have a nuanced view of two candidates for Congress who are from different parties.

These days, the battle is at the primary level. Once past that on the national and even state level, you're mostly voting for a party platform rather than a candidate.

---

And most R's don't understand this. And that the primaries are ugly, always have been and always will be. Too many hold a grudge against the candidate that won because they said something mean about the candidate they wanted and will either not vote or vote for the opposition in the general.