With a fairly long voting history,I as you, have come across Reps. and Dems. that for years will go to the voting booth and pull that lever for their party. Doesn`t matter whether they`ve have taken the time to examine the candidates,learn as much as they can about who their candidate is, take into consideration if what their candidate is promising he/she even will have the power to deliver once elected. IMO, with one of the most important elections in my(maybe your) history, how many will go to that voting booth and pull the lever simply cause thats the way they`ve always voted?
How far does party loyalty go?
- Thread starter shortwave
- Start date
toybox99615
New member
just ask McCain
who votoes with the party 89 to 90% of the time
who votoes with the party 89 to 90% of the time
toybox99615
New member
not when your selling yourself as a change agent
who will end party line problems from DC politics and bring the parties together. You know like Bush promised to do eight years ago.
who will end party line problems from DC politics and bring the parties together. You know like Bush promised to do eight years ago.
SilentHitz
New member
I'm independent, have no loyalty for either party. I vote for the person...not the party. I check to see if they have done what's best for the people...not their political gain.
I vote for the candidate that most closely matches my views and beliefs---doesn't matter what party.
That's a true statement, but a little misleading.
90% of congress voted with Bush 90% of the time.
Yes, WHEN he ACTUALLY votes!!
Wonder why Congress has a single digit approval rating??
Couldn't be that they won't do ANYTHING to get along right?
I mean, they might make Bush look good and that would hurt Obama's bid for the White House.
Takes a few branches of the government to make it work---like I said, NO president is a KING or Dictator---BO may face the same problems one day although I doubt it---I think all this stuff in Congress is going to backfire on them big time---McCain gets elected and we vote the Dems out for their lack of action.
Dipper
That's a true statement, but a little misleading.
90% of congress voted with Bush 90% of the time.
Yes, WHEN he ACTUALLY votes!!
Wonder why Congress has a single digit approval rating??
Couldn't be that they won't do ANYTHING to get along right?
I mean, they might make Bush look good and that would hurt Obama's bid for the White House.
Takes a few branches of the government to make it work---like I said, NO president is a KING or Dictator---BO may face the same problems one day although I doubt it---I think all this stuff in Congress is going to backfire on them big time---McCain gets elected and we vote the Dems out for their lack of action.
Dipper
LightningJoe
New member
The Democrats and Republicans vote exactly the same in the Senate most of the time. McCain would have to jump out the window and fly away not to vote "with the party" 90% of the time.
mountainclmbr
New member
Since I believe in individual liberty and freedom, and not for collectivism and tyranny, I have voted for Republicans for a long while. I did not vote for the second seige of George Bush I and his gun bans. I voted for Ross Perot instead and we got another gun banner...Slick Willie.
It's funny about party affiliation. I live in an area where I know lots of people who are ideologically to the right of Genghis Khan, especially on social issues, yet they reflexively vote Democrat every time. From what I've heard and observed though they're not conciously voting for the Democrat party of the present but for the Democrat Party of JFK or LBJ or even FDR (sometimes unto the second or third generation). Their views of what it means to be a Democrat froze sometime before 1968 and no current reality can shake that.
One would think that party was some meaningless symbol.
The party has a philosophical meaning of its own. While some people do vote party out of habit or for what ever reason; many vote for the party because the ideals of the party better represent them than even the most attractive opposition candidate.
On a practical level the party is also an instrument for the exercise of power. Voting for that less than satisfactory candidate when that candidate means the difference between your party having a majority makes a lot more sense than voting for the better opposition guy.
Of course that's more true of the republicans, than the make kissy face with everyone, pantie waist democrats.
That other man/woman, doesn't exist in a vacuum. They are attached to their party and all the freight that carries. I don't care if it's JeZuZ himself is running on the opposite ticket he's going to have to dance with the party that brung him.
Finally we have the weak sisters of democracy; the single issue voter. Whether it's fuzzy kittens of public execution people become invested in an issue. Issues are more attached to parties than candidates. Satan will get votes from single issue voters if he's running with the right party.
The party has a philosophical meaning of its own. While some people do vote party out of habit or for what ever reason; many vote for the party because the ideals of the party better represent them than even the most attractive opposition candidate.
On a practical level the party is also an instrument for the exercise of power. Voting for that less than satisfactory candidate when that candidate means the difference between your party having a majority makes a lot more sense than voting for the better opposition guy.
Of course that's more true of the republicans, than the make kissy face with everyone, pantie waist democrats.
That other man/woman, doesn't exist in a vacuum. They are attached to their party and all the freight that carries. I don't care if it's JeZuZ himself is running on the opposite ticket he's going to have to dance with the party that brung him.
Finally we have the weak sisters of democracy; the single issue voter. Whether it's fuzzy kittens of public execution people become invested in an issue. Issues are more attached to parties than candidates. Satan will get votes from single issue voters if he's running with the right party.
The ”two party system“ is not part of what the Founding Fathers set up. In fact, they considered banning national political parties because of the fear that party loyalties would overrule loyalty to the country. The first ”factions,” as they were called, were aligned according to a political philosophy of federalism vs. states rights, or republicanism.
Today, we have two parties that are loosely organized around liberal vs. conservative philosophies, whatever that means. In reality, the majority of voters should be independent, but parties try to force people to declare a party by various means, then insist on party loyalty.
Today, we have two parties that are loosely organized around liberal vs. conservative philosophies, whatever that means. In reality, the majority of voters should be independent, but parties try to force people to declare a party by various means, then insist on party loyalty.
I understand about party loyalty but I can also see where it takes us to much of the time. I also see the "check and balance" system supposedly built into our government set-up. Seems as though in the later years of my life I`ve noticed the parties are more often worried more about whats best for their party and less whats good for the country. For the last 40yrs Reps. have been wanting to drill for domestic oil. Dems. say no drilling. This is just one example that has turned into a macho political football that the been paid for by us(the taxpayer). Doesn`t(and hasn`t) seem to be what is the logical thing to do and whats best for everyone, its who`s going to win this peeing contest. These Mexican standoffs between parties gets nothing worked out but we all suffer. Maybe when those situations occurr an arbitrator should settle the parties disputes so the country can move on with less cost to the parties customers. Parties customers=`s YOU AND I.