"I Vote For The Man" An Outdated Concept....

[Ingomike]

Gee, I feel like I've seen this discussion around here once or twice before. Same tired arguments.

In a nutshell, this is another of the "if you don't think like I do, you are a _______" topics.

Let's drum up some fear of the other guys. They are coming for our guns. Obama, Schumer, and Pelosi will ban them all! Except they didn't do anything when they had control.

Our team is pro-gun! When we have the house, Senate, and President watch out! Except they wouldn't even vote on a pro-gun bill. Not even something like taking suppressors off of the NFA list or national reciprocity.

And I will say again, those you call RINOs, are the Republicans. They may not be what YOU think a Republican is, but they are what the Party is today. They are probably CINOs.

While agreeing with the sentiment of your post, the the Dems did not do it because they thought they were in charge and had time. Just like RBG did not retire because she wasn't ready and it was assured H would win. They also liked fund raising off of it. Side note, if she has to retire before a Dem is elected they will go nuts. This is currently evidenced by the inability of Dems to even condemn anti-semitism, if a Repub had said similar a majority would be all over TV preening as they blasted the individual.

The Repubs on the other hand are more truly diverse in thinking and if you think they were on the same team you were not paying attention. Then to make things worse, every time it was being reported that a pro-gun vote was coming, a new major shooting occurred right before. It was uncanny how coincidental it was. Then the moderate Repubs got all wishy-washy...

Not defending, but rather pointing out how it went down.

MM

 

[KLB]

While agreeing with the sentiment of your post, the the Dems did not do it because they thought they were in charge and had time. Just like RBG did not retire because she wasn't ready and it was assured H would win. They also liked fund raising off of it. Side note, if she has to retire before a Dem is elected they will go nuts. This is currently evidenced by the inability of Dems to even condemn anti-semitism, if a Repub had said similar a majority would be all over TV preening as they blasted the individual.

The Repubs on the other hand are more truly diverse in thinking and if you think they were on the same team you were not paying attention. Then to make things worse, every time it was being reported that a pro-gun vote was coming, a new major shooting occurred right before. It was uncanny how coincidental it was. Then the moderate Repubs got all wishy-washy...

Not defending, but rather pointing out how it went down.

MM

I don't buy your reasoning. If it was THAT important to them, they would have made sure they got it done. I don't know what Ginsburg's actual reasoning for not retiring was. Whether she wanted the first female President to pick her successor, or whether she just likes being on the court and being the idle of so many progressives.

Both parties fund raise off the subject. Neither party actual follows through on their promises to the people that give them money and votes.

Diverse? Both parties tow the party line. The Ds may be marginally worse, but we are talking percentage points. According to the Brookings Institute numbers for 2016 (the last year they show)
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch8_tbl4.pdf
House D 96 R 96
Senate D 92 R 86

Both parties are more worried about their team these days than their constituents.

 

[Ingomike]

I don't buy your reasoning. If it was THAT important to them, they would have made sure they got it done. I don't know what Ginsburg's actual reasoning for not retiring was. Whether she wanted the first female President to pick her successor, or whether she just likes being on the court and being the idle of so many progressives.

Both parties fund raise off the subject. Neither party actual follows through on their promises to the people that give them money and votes.

Diverse? Both parties tow the party line. The Ds may be marginally worse, but we are talking percentage points. According to the Brookings Institute numbers for 2016 (the last year they show)
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch8_tbl4.pdf
House D 96 R 96
Senate D 92 R 86

Both parties are more worried about their team these days than their constituents.

You mean, both parties are more worried about their fund raising than constituents...

MM

 

[jamil]

Do you have a concept of congressional approval ratings?

something in the 6% approval range.

And for individual congress people? Over 60% approval is what I've consistently seen reported.

A big majority approve of their congress person, while loathing other people's congress reps...

MM

Kinda points out the folly of the idea of voting for the party.

 

[Ingomike]

Nothing posted here has changed my mind that in federal congressional elections it is team not man voting. None of us like that situation but that is the reality of it. I think in general some folks like to think they are still voting for the man but as we see the stats prove otherwise. The voters that drive me crazy are truly conservatives that are voting against conservative candidates because, "daddy and gran-daddy were Dems and so are we", many of them complain about the policies their votes promulgated.

MM

 

[jamil]

Gee, I feel like I've seen this discussion around here once or twice before. Same tired arguments.

In a nutshell, this is another of the "if you don't think like I do, you are a _______" topics.

Let's drum up some fear of the other guys. They are coming for our guns. Obama, Schumer, and Pelosi will ban them all! Except they didn't do anything when they had control.

Our team is pro-gun! When we have the house, Senate, and President watch out! Except they wouldn't even vote on a pro-gun bill. Not even something like taking suppressors off of the NFA list or national reciprocity.

And I will say again, those you call RINOs, are the Republicans. They may not be what YOU think a Republican is, but they are what the Party is today. They are probably CINOs.

Oh. Just look at Indiana. Even with an uber-majority we can't get the "pro-2A party" even to hear a bill for constitutional carry, let along pass it. It think the most accurate way to put it is that the Republican party is not the party of pro-2a, but most pro-2a people tend to vote Republican. At most you might call it the party of Fudds.

 

[Ingomike]

Kinda points out the folly of the idea of voting for the party.

How? Just because we are dissatisfied with the results of congress and are frustrated that they usually block one another from achieving what they campaign on does not rule out it takes a "team" to implement in today's politics.

MM

 

[jamil]

Still ain't seeing any pro-gun dems...

The relevance of your point has been debunked several ways. No one is saying we should go out and vote for anti-gun democrats. Surely you have something else with which you can justify unwavering loyalty to your team. As an individual, just vote for the people who best check the boxes on your values and principles. Likely it won't be a democrat because there aren't many pro-gun democrats. And the few that are tend to be coerced by their own team's hegemony.

But, the point is, loyalty to a political team is not a virtue. It is unnecessary.

 

[Ingomike]

Oh. Just look at Indiana. Even with an uber-majority we can't get the "pro-2A party" even to hear a bill for constitutional carry, let along pass it. It think the most accurate way to put it is that the Republican party is not the party of pro-2a, but most pro-2a people tend to vote Republican. At most you might call it the party of Fudds.

Winner!

Remember, the Repub team is only as good as the least conservative members in what they can pass. My understanding is some sensitive bills fail in committee because supporters do not have the votes to pass and don't want to risk amendments that may damage them. Kelly may have further input on this point.

MM

 

[jamil]

So why should we be loyal to team R? Hmm? Be loyal to your principles and vote for the candidate who least ****s on those principles. Which as I've said, is most likely a republican. But that doesn't mean we owe them any loyalty. We should all be ready to drop them like a used rubber when something better comes along. Our voting system as it is now, tends to make that hard to do.

 

[Ingomike]

So why should we be loyal to team R? Hmm? Be loyal to your principles and vote for the candidate who least ****s on those principles. Which as I've said, is most likely a republican. But that doesn't mean we owe them any loyalty. We should all be ready to drop them like a used rubber when something better comes along. Our voting system as it is now, tends to make that hard to do.

We owe them NO loyalty, but the point is for congressional elections, a vote for a candidate you believe a good "man" is a vote for that party and that fact cannot be separated.

MM

 

[mmpsteve]

We owe them NO loyalty, but the point is for congressional elections, a vote for a candidate you believe a good "man" is a vote for that party and that fact cannot be separated.

MM

J keeps harping about teams. I'm not a team player, but reality is, that one team is not like the other. I have no choice, but to live in reality.

.

 

[jamil]

We owe them NO loyalty, but the point is for congressional elections, a vote for a candidate you believe a good "man" is a vote for that party and that fact cannot be separated.

MM

Okay, let's say I define "good" as the best representative of my principles, and desired policies, and likely outcomes? As an individual voter, rather than a team voter, if I vote for the "good" candidate, it's unlikely to be a democrat. They're disqualified by my criteria of "good". Even if unicorns were real and a democrat shared my principles, agreed with me on policiy, they're disqualified by the "likely outcome" component of "good" for the reasons you give for voting for the team. So if it's a function of voting for the "good" candidate, the outcome is the same as you voting for your team, without taking on all the "team" bull****.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, and you're not making an us/them collectivist argument. But given your responses to other posts, it seems you are. And that brings me to the point about loyalty. Loyalty is inextricably connected to the idea of "team". In terms of political worldviews, "us/them" is collectivist whether it's on the left or the right. My caution against voting for the "team" is from a belief that we should be weary of the blind loyalty that tends to form with the collectives we consider ourselves part of. Loyalty should be more to values and principles, and to the extent it becomes applied to individuals, it should always have strings attached back to the underlying values and principles. Blind loyalty should only be to sports teams.

 

[jamil]

J keeps harping about teams. I'm not a team player, but reality is, that one team is not like the other. I have no choice, but to live in reality.

.

It sounds like you may think I'm saying something I'm not saying. Perhaps my reply to Ingomike will help. If tldr; it boils down to my way is a non-team player's way that achieves the same thing without the team bull****. I wish there were no parties, and it was all just a choice between individuals who advocate for various policies. I do realize that it's not, and it's never been about denying such. It's about avoiding "teams" in politics. Because teams suck.

 

[BugI02]

Kinda points out the folly of the idea of voting for the party.

How? Just because we are dissatisfied with the results of congress and are frustrated that they usually block one another from achieving what they campaign on does not rule out it takes a "team" to implement in today's politics.

MM

Gonna have to go with Mike on this one, jamil. No matter how impressed I was with Jim Webb or how much I liked what ideas he campaigned on, I'm not voting to help elect a Democratic president. For certain offices, success at the ballot box is a major jump in power level for that party. Couple that with how often a president strays from his platform after election, quite often in order to be able to get anything done with his own party (See: Every Republican president since Eisenhower) and I'm voting Republican for the major offices, same at the state level. From where I stand, Trump is the first president in a lo-o-o-ng time to expend considerable effort to deliver on what he campaigned on - I don't think we should count on that as the new normal. Do you seriously think what we have now after the 2018 midterms we somehow deserved because of what got done (or didn't) while we controlled all three branches? Maybe you should meditate on what more could have been done if Trump hadn't had to endure all the 'friendly' fire as well as biased coverage and the self-serving voting of squishes like McCain and Flake

I did my part at Federal and State level, and I am still only likely to consider voting the man for state level house and senate if overall control of the legislative body is not in play. The worst Republican is better than Democratic control of any branch of government that can directly affect me

 

[BugI02]

Okay, let's say I define "good" as the best representative of my principles, and desired policies, and likely outcomes? As an individual voter, rather than a team voter, if I vote for the "good" candidate, it's unlikely to be a democrat. They're disqualified by my criteria of "good". Even if unicorns were real and a democrat shared my principles, agreed with me on policiy, they're disqualified by the "likely outcome" component of "good" for the reasons you give for voting for the team. So if it's a function of voting for the "good" candidate, the outcome is the same as you voting for your team, without taking on all the "team" bull****.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, and you're not making an us/them collectivist argument. But given your responses to other posts, it seems you are. And that brings me to the point about loyalty. Loyalty is inextricably connected to the idea of "team". In terms of political worldviews, "us/them" is collectivist whether it's on the left or the right. My caution against voting for the "team" is from a belief that we should be weary of the blind loyalty that tends to form with the collectives we consider ourselves part of. Loyalty should be more to values and principles, and to the extent it becomes applied to individuals, it should always have strings attached back to the underlying values and principles. Blind loyalty should only be to sports teams.

I keep seeing this concept, and everybody keeps falling all over themselves to assert that Trump was not their first choice or that choosing between Trump and The Corrupt One forced their hand. So tell me, as truthfully as you can (and ignoring whether they actually could have gotten elected), who of the other fifteen do you think could have been elected and been effective enough against some level of the crooked media that Trump faces and squishes in his own party to have us as well off as we are now or better off?

If you want to go revisionist, as in "well, he wouldn't have banned bump stocks or overreached on the National Emergency" , you'll need to also make a convincing case that that person wouldn't have given in to pressure to appoint the kinds of judges Republicans have had a record of appointing or have us sending more kids to fight in sandy hellholes for no discernable gain. Talking about the whole picture

 

[Ingomike]

This thread is not about those of you who are engaged, but rather to point out that a vote for any Dem congressional candidate was a vote for Pelosi to be speaker and AOC Et Al to do just what they are doing, even if the candidate seems like a good well intentioned person, as evidenced by the party voting records.

I referenced Bart Stupak previously, he was a pivotal vote that brought us Obamacare, I'm certain his voters thought he was a great guy and a conservative Dem. They might as well have voted for AOC as their "man" ultimately voted with his team. The voters of that district now are voting for the team they probably wished they had earlier and now are a Repub district.

MM

 

[jamil]

Gonna have to go with Mike on this one, jamil. No matter how impressed I was with Jim Webb or how much I liked what ideas he campaigned on, I'm not voting to help elect a Democratic president. For certain offices, success at the ballot box is a major jump in power level for that party. Couple that with how often a president strays from his platform after election, quite often in order to be able to get anything done with his own party (See: Every Republican president since Eisenhower) and I'm voting Republican for the major offices, same at the state level. From where I stand, Trump is the first president in a lo-o-o-ng time to expend considerable effort to deliver on what he campaigned on - I don't think we should count on that as the new normal. Do you seriously think what we have now after the 2018 midterms we somehow deserved because of what got done (or didn't) while we controlled all three branches? Maybe you should meditate on what more could have been done if Trump hadn't had to endure all the 'friendly' fire as well as biased coverage and the self-serving voting of squishes like McCain and Flake

I did my part at Federal and State level, and I am still only likely to consider voting the man for state level house and senate if overall control of the legislative body is not in play. The worst Republican is better than Democratic control of any branch of government that can directly affect me

I still don't think I'm getting my point across. I may not have voted for Jim Webb either. He's not "the enemy" though just because he's a democrat. It's the mindset of "team R" that I'm opposed to. I think we'll continue to get more extreme candidates the more we push that theme along with all the other things I've mentioned here and elsewhere.

 

[jamil]

I keep seeing this concept, and everybody keeps falling all over themselves to assert that Trump was not their first choice or that choosing between Trump and The Corrupt One forced their hand. So tell me, as truthfully as you can (and ignoring whether they actually could have gotten elected), who of the other fifteen do you think could have been elected and been effective enough against some level of the crooked media that Trump faces and squishes in his own party to have us as well off as we are now or better off?

If you want to go revisionist, as in "well, he wouldn't have banned bump stocks or overreached on the National Emergency" , you'll need to also make a convincing case that that person wouldn't have given in to pressure to appoint the kinds of judges Republicans have had a record of appointing or have us sending more kids to fight in sandy hellholes for no discernable gain. Talking about the whole picture

I really don't understand why it's "falling all over themselves" to say Trump wasn't their first choice. Do you think Trump really was their first choice but they're lying to virtue-signal? What if they're just saying what happened? How is that falling all over themselves? Why is that a problem?

So my choices: Early in the primary I supported Rand Paul. Then when he dropped out I supported Cruz. Either one would have had the traditional problem with the media that all Republicans have. I think there is a fair case for that so it's not all that speculative. Any Republican is gonna get vilified. But would Cruz have beaten Hillary? I don't know. She's the worst candidate ever, so he'd have a fair shot. Beyond that is speculative.

 

[Ingomike]

This is not only a Federal issue, it has taken over at the state level.

When the 21st century began, no legislative chamber in the country was more volatile than the Indiana House. Control switched between Republicans and Democrats no fewer than six times between 1990 and 2010. During the 1989-1990 session, the chamber was tied, leading to the practice of having a “speaker du jour,” with party control effectively changing hands on a daily basis.
The idea of a Democratic majority in Indiana is a dim memory at this point. Republicans took over the House in 2010 and haven’t looked back since. Although they gave up three seats in November, they still hold two-thirds of the chamber. As in many other states, Democrats have been wiped out in rural counties. There’s only one Democrat left in the Indiana House who holds a rural seat. In the southwestern section of the state -- once such a competitive region that the congressional district was known for decades as the “bloody 8th” -- a Democrat represents downtown Evansville but Republicans control everything else. “It’s dramatic supermajorities in both chambers,” says Robert Dion, a University of Evansville political scientist. “The minority party is teetering on irrelevance.”
What makes the Indiana example important is that it’s not an exception. Instead, such circumstances have become common. All over the country, chambers that once were up for grabs are now firmly controlled by one party holding what resembles an open-ended lease. There are exceptions, but in most states, either Democrats or Republicans have held power for years and are unlikely to give it up anytime soon. “There are only two split legislatures in the entire country -- Congress and Minnesota,” says Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee. “Everyone else lives in a state that is either red or blue.”


Look at Indiana’s neighbors. Republicans have been out of power in the Illinois House since 1996. The question during election years isn’t whether Democrats will win, but whether they’ll win big enough to hold a supermajority. Ohio, long considered a bellwether state in presidential voting, has become solidly red at the legislative level, with Republican supermajorities in both chambers. As in Indiana, Republicans took the state House in 2010 and have held it ever since. They’ve controlled the Ohio Senate since the mid-1980s. Having picked up a seat in November, Republicans now hold their largest majority in the chamber in 70 years.






https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-state-politics-governors-2019.html