Political affiliation in the United States

[dobberhd]

I'm a rather inactive member of this community and have been here since the first year of Gone Gold.

I really wish we had a more diverse community politically. This board is not only slanted heavily liberal but actively shames anyone who expresses conservative ideas. This is the same problem modern politics has: unable to have a political discussion without mockery and wailing. Both parties are guilty of the same.

[stessier]

I think it depends what qualifies as a conservative idea. Something like lower taxes will get a different response than support for the former president.

[malchior]

I think it depends what qualifies as a conservative idea. Something like lower taxes will get a different response than support for the former president.

Yup. It goes to the root that the modern GOP is not conservative. In that they aren't conserving anything. I also reject the idea that everyone here is heavily liberal. There are a lot of ex-GOP (myself included) represented. You won't find universal fawning praise for Biden here though he definitely has reasonably objective defenders here. There isn't a Palmer Report obsequious vibe in sight here.

[Blackhawk]

I really wish we had a more diverse community politically. This board is not only slanted heavily liberal but actively shames anyone who expresses conservative ideas. This is the same problem modern politics has: unable to have a political discussion without mockery and wailing. Both parties are guilty of the same.

I think it depends what qualifies as a conservative idea. Something like lower taxes will get a different response than support for the former president.

I agree with both of these posts. I really do wish we didn't all have only the one voice here. I'd love to see some more honest discourse on issues like taxes, the military, the economy. I actually skew closer to conservative on some issues. But there's a big difference between pre-21st Century conservatism and modern 'Party of Trump.' If the issues are about race, gay/gender rights, the legitimacy of government overthrow, deliberately teaching misinformation in schools when the facts make us look bad, and other elements of right radicalism, I'm far less willing to give an inch.

And a lot of mocking comes from the tendency of the few conservatives we have to troll, not discuss. They like to make drive-by posts formulated just to get people red-faced and angry. Like the recent MSD post - I can think of legitimate discussions on abortion, but how do you have a discussion about "Neener neener neener" ?

[LordMortis]

I think it depends what qualifies as a conservative idea. Something like lower taxes will get a different response than support for the former president.

Yup. It goes to the root that the modern GOP is not conservative. In that they aren't conserving anything. I also reject the idea that everyone here is heavily liberal. There are a lot of ex-GOP (myself included) represented. You won't find universal fawning praise for Biden here though he definitely has reasonably objective defenders here. There isn't a Palmer Report obsequious vibe in sight here.

Previously libertarian tending voting with strong conservative ties here. However, I also maintain that R&P is pretty much liberal sounding board. That said, for me it's hard to find serious/reasonable conservative thinking much of anywhere anymore, which is half of what turned me away. The other half being lip service paid to the values/mores I hold that are conservative/libertarian to begin with. Previous, being that the slide for me began probably 20 years ago at this point. I can even remember where the turning point began for me. Iraq war = Necessary Bush. = bad Clinton. = Necessary Bush Jr. The whole time I watched what we did to the Kurds and watching that really got me watching what we say vs what we do under 21 century conservative and libertarian politicians. The rise of Tea Party and self proclaimed torch bearers of the Federalist Papers put the last dirt on the grave for me.

[Kraken]

Sure, we used to argue about issues and policies, and disagreeing over that is healthy. If a "conservative" has bought the Big Lie, though, there's no basis for rational discussion, as they're starting with a flawed premise. That is, if you want to argue over whether Biden's BBB package is good or bad for the economy, there's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement. If you think Biden's an illegitimate president who must be categorically opposed, there's nothing to talk about. I wish that the GOP actually had policies other than voter suppression and election shenanigans that we could argue over; when only one party has a policy agenda, that narrows the conversation considerably.

I'm pretty liberal, but I miss rational conservatives.

[dobberhd]

I agree with the sentiment that Donald Trump hasn't been entirely good for the country. I also agree the continued argument about an illegitimate election is wrong.

But I don't agree with your statement about voter suppression. In order for the Republic to be strong, we need to make sure the voting process is above reproach. If a good chunk of the country doesn't see the election as fair and above the table, then reform the voting process to ensure all of the citizens trust the process. Requiring an ID to vote in person is not unreasonable.

[Isgrimnur]

If a good chunk of the country doesn't see the election as fair and above the table, then reform the voting process to ensure all of the citizens trust the process.

If the process is already fair and above the table and the only issue is perception, then "reforming the process" is just cover for disenfranchisement.

Kansas: Kansas agrees to $1.9M settlement for defending Kobach’s baseless voter fraud claims

Texas: Texas AG Paxton’s $2.2M voter fraud unit closed three cases in 2021. GOP lawmakers still boosted its budget.

Texas: Texas attorney general cannot unilaterally prosecute election cases, state's highest criminal court rules. The 8-1 decision came Wednesday from the all-Republican Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Heritage Foundation has a tracker for voter fraud. The count for 2021 cases is 20. Across the entire nation.

The side dedicated to the marketing of the idea of voter fraud has yet to show any serious results that there is a systemic problem. But yet they are willing to disenfranchise thousands of not millions of voters for less than two dozen cases a year?

A good chunk of the country doesn't see the election as fair and above the table because they've been told by those who benefit from their votes and support. And those individuals aren't taking any evidence from anyone else as credible.

[malchior]

But I don't agree with your statement about voter suppression. In order for the Republic to be strong, we need to make sure the voting process is above reproach. If a good chunk of the country doesn't see the election as fair and above the table, then reform the voting process to ensure all of the citizens trust the process.

Yet the Conservatives are the ones doing the most damage to elections. The ID thing is something of a distraction. It is a real stretch especially considering the events of the last year to think ID requirements are the reason that our elections are being called into question. We had investigations/audits of multiple elections. They turned up almost no fraud. They showed that our elections were well run and fair. I'd welcome any evidence that ID requirements or lack thereof had any material impact.

Requiring an ID to vote in person is not unreasonable.

It isn't unreasonable but there is a lot of context around this. A lot of folks in other countries do this. However, in the United States ID requirements have to evaluated in the context of poll taxes, Jim Crow, etc. There is a lot of baggage there and this ID discussion is an example of something that has as I'm attempting to point out above been used to distort more than its significance in election outcomes. This isn't the emerging problem with our elections. It is more along the lines of surgically applied voter suppression, mechanisms to outright overturn elections - we saw a plan that failed at this at the highest level only a year ago, and denial that the elections are fair that are largely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories.

[Zarathud]

Republicanism has been intellectually bankrupt since the Clinton years. I got interested in tax and economics in the 80s due to Newt Gingrich. He drove me out by his abuse of power opposing Clinton.

It just took decades for the rot to wither the party. Those who stuck with the party were driven away by Trump or turned into (or exposed as) trolls.

OO isn’t an echo chamber. It’s decent and not a cesspool of hate and resentment. Unfortunately, that’s what conservatism has devolved into.

Get into substance and R&P will argue. I’m the communitarian against many libertarians on a number of issues. Many have their own issues in opposition to others here. The downfall of liberals is being unable to agree on policy or strategy.

[Carpet_pissr]

I really wish we had a more diverse community politically. This board is not only slanted heavily liberal but actively shames anyone who expresses conservative ideas.

Totally agree with you about wishing we were more politically diverse (at least the ones posting in R&P threads)

There was a time when I think much if not most of the posters in R&P leaned heavy libertarian.

I’m very, VERY liberal, but also very critical of most Democrats, and am not a fan of the Democrat party in general (lurved me some Obama though).

Where you are wrong IMO was mentioned above: you seem to be confusing ‘conservative’ with ‘modern GOP’ and/or Trumpism.

I think if you try to posit actual politically conservative arguments in R&P, I like to think, and hope you will get reasonable responses vs piling on.

You post MAGA bullshit, however, and I will probably be the first one jumping you.

[Skinypupy]

If a good chunk of the country doesn't see the election as fair and above the table, then reform the voting process to ensure all of the citizens trust the process. Requiring an ID to vote in person is not unreasonable.

Perhaps we should also examine why they feel elections aren’t fair and above the table, no?

Because it seems to me that most people who think elections are not secure do so because of what they hear from conservative media…which is not supported by anything factual at all. There have been multiple election audits in multiple states, and every one has proven there is no widespread election fraud. There has been absolutely no proof of election fraud in court, with 60+ lawsuits filed and summarily dismissed.

People still choose to believe that there is fraud because the misinformation they’re are spoon-fed causes them to “feel” like there must be. That’s not a problem with the voting system.

The bigger challenge is that the well has now been poisoned. Any result they don’t like will now be viewed as fraudulent, regardless of the process. Elections are valid only if the GOP candidate wins. And if they don’t win, then additional “evidence” of fraud needs to be created to justify the additional onerous systems that will be put in place to ensure fewer people can vote. All so a nonexistent problem can be “fixed”.

[dobberhd]

When investigating for fraudulent votes, do the investigators go to the actual voters that mailed in the ballot to confirm their votes? I've never heard this confirmed.

[stessier]

When investigating for fraudulent votes, do the investigators go to the actual voters that mailed in the ballot to confirm their votes? I've never heard this confirmed.

What do you mean by "confirm their votes"? If you are asking if they confirm people voted, then yes. If you are asking if they confirm how people voted, then I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

[Isgrimnur]

Kobach’s strongest evidence of non-citizen registration was anemic at best: Over a 20-year period, fewer than 40 non-citizens had attempted to register in one Kansas county that had 130,000 voters. Most of those 40 improper registrations were the result of mistakes or confusion rather than intentional attempts to mislead, and only five of the 40 managed to cast a vote.
...
As the judge’s opinion noted, Kobach insisted the meager instances of cheating revealed at trial are just “the tip of the iceberg.” As she explained, “This trial was his opportunity to produce credible evidence of that iceberg, but he failed to do so.”

[Alefroth]

But I don't agree with your statement about voter suppression. In order for the Republic to be strong, we need to make sure the voting process is above reproach.

Maybe start the discussion with where you think the current process is failing and how it is not beyond reproach.

[Blackhawk]

Where there's an cube, there's a berg!

Our voting system needs overhauled, but not in the ways the right is clamoring for. Popular opinion, unless backed with facts, isn't a solid foundation to shore up a teetering nation on.

[Kraken]

I think most of us would agree: If the election had been stolen -- by either side -- we'd be up in arms over it. That's actually something we have in common with the MAGAs. If trump had produced credible evidence of widespread voter fraud, I would not be OK with it because our team won.

Where we part ways is insisting on that evidence. Of which there is zilch.

[geezer]

When investigating for fraudulent votes, do the investigators go to the actual voters that mailed in the ballot to confirm their votes? I've never heard this confirmed.

Not trying to pick on you, but this is a stellar example of how something that seems reasonable actually isn't, and it's super annoying that people can be manipulated into thinking "Democrats are stealing elections with mail in voting" because they don't think just one layer deeper. One the surface, yeah, this seems like a logical question to ask, because, well, why isn't it possible that a fraudulent vote should haven submitted by mail. Because that would be seriously easy, right? By allowing mail-in voting you're just asking for a simple way to submit a ballot without any verification, right? Well, no. Not at all.

The thing is, it really *isn't* easy. Even just logistically. Let's say I wanted to snake someone's vote. In order to falsify their mail-in vote, I'd have to start by getting the ballot. I'd have to either divert their ballot to me somehow, or know the ballot was requested and grab it out of their mailbox on the specific day that it arrived. (If this isn't already making you wonder how the hell you could do things on any kind of relevant scale, I don't know what to say) Then I'd have to hope that the person in question either didn't miss the ballot that they requested, or hadn't already requested the ballot before I thought up my crazy ballot stealing idea, etc. etc. THEN, I have to hope that somehow they don't somehow still vote themselves (meaning two ballots keyed to the individual don't somehow arrive), or that they don't show up to vote in person and find out that, nope, they already voted (when they didn't). And all of that before any basic ballot matching security happens in the precinct/district/state/whatever. (And incidentally, if rampant fraud was happening ballot conflicts like this would be reported ALL. THE. TIME.)

And so on and so on and so on. Again, not trying to pick on you but it frustrating to continually hear ostensibly rational people believe this bullshit about election integrity. I swear, it's like people think you can just throw a slip of paper in an envelope with a Democrat's name on in, send it in to.. somewhere.. and it gets counted as a vote.

[RunningMn9]

I agree with the sentiment that Donald Trump hasn't been entirely good for the country. I also agree the continued argument about an illegitimate election is wrong.

But I don't agree with your statement about voter suppression. In order for the Republic to be strong, we need to make sure the voting process is above reproach. If a good chunk of the country doesn't see the election as fair and above the table, then reform the voting process to ensure all of the citizens trust the process. Requiring an ID to vote in person is not unreasonable.

Donald Trump was a history-defining disaster for this country. He’s 367 steps past “not entirely good”.

Anyway, the real issue I wanted to address (as a former conservative that is still conservative about some things), is the idea that if a good chunk of the country doesn’t see the election as fair and above the table, we should reform the system.

What if that good chunk of the country doesn’t “see” it as fair and above the table because they are being lied to? What if they are being lied to by the people that want to reform the voting system in very specific ways for political reasons? What if there is no problem to solve?

These are important questions, because that’s exactly what’s happening. The idea that we should reform elections because a certain group of people have accepted the lie they’ve been told - and that we should let the liars reform the system? I assume you see the issue with that, even if you don’t see the lie (yet).

There are no issues with election integrity in this country. There have been no issues with election integrity in this country. There are no issues with mail-in votes. There are no issues with people showing up to vote as someone else because they don’t have to display an ID. There are no issues with allowing early voting, or having lots of convenient drop boxes. No problems have been caused by having too many polling places in “certain” communities. No elections have been swindled by people handing out water to those in line to vote.

The “solutions” to these non-existent problems aren’t being proposed because a real problem exists. They are being proposed to make it harder for some voters to vote. They are being proposed by one side because they predominantly make it harder for voters that favor their political opponents to vote.

Their purpose is not to strengthen the Republic. Their purpose is to protect minority rule.

[YellowKing]

Republicans are insanely good at creating non-existent problems, getting their base fired up and angry about these "problems," and then proposing solutions to these problems (which inevitably disenfranchise anyone who isn't a straight white Republican).

See: immigrant caravans, bathroom bills, transgender people in sports, etc.

I always ask people who are ranting about this stuff - "Is this a problem you were concerned about before Fox News told you to be angry?" If the answer is no, then it's never been an actual problem and you're being manipulated.

[stessier]

There are no issues with election integrity in this country. There have been no issues with election integrity in this country. There are no issues with mail-in votes. There are no issues with people showing up to vote as someone else because they don’t have to display an ID. There are now issues with allowing early voting, or having lots of convenient drop boxes. No problems have been caused by having too many polling places in “certain” communities. No elections have been swindled by people handing out water to those in line to vote.

Just wanted to point out you have a typo here.

[RunningMn9]

Fixed!

[geezer]

It's weird how "voter integrity" people never want to stick around and debate specifics about voter fraud and the voting process.

[Kurth]

It's weird how "voter integrity" people never want to stick around and debate specifics about voter fraud and the voting process.

Yeah. I wonder why.

[Alefroth]

If a good chunk of the country doesn't see the election as fair and above the table, then reform the voting process to ensure all of the citizens trust the process.

Isn't that what the John Lewis Voting Rights act and other federal voting legislation is trying to do? Or is that the wrong good chunk of the country?

[Kurth]

So, following up on my thoughts about changing political party affiliation from Dem to GOP in order to have some impact here in Oregon, I've run into a roadblock. I can't figure out how to do it! We seem to have a great website for updating voter registration information, but political party affiliation isn't included in the info you can update.

Any ideas on how I can become a card carrying member of the GOP so I can cast a vote for someone who's not Trump in the GOP primary?

[Jaymann]

I think they are taking applications at the Capitol building.

[coopasonic]

So, following up on my thoughts about changing political party affiliation from Dem to GOP in order to have some impact here in Oregon, I've run into a roadblock. I can't figure out how to do it! We seem to have a great website for updating voter registration information, but political party affiliation isn't included in the info you can update.

Any ideas on how I can become a card carrying member of the GOP so I can cast a vote for someone who's not Trump in the GOP primary?

https://blog.oregonlegalresearch.com/ho ... in-oregon/

RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGING YOUR OREGON VOTER REGISTRATION PARTY AFFILIATION:

Contact your county’s Elections office; they should almost always be the first place you turn anyway when you have questions about Elections and Voting. You can find links to your county’s elections info at the SoS County Elections Officials webpage.

Some county elections websites give very clear instructions on updating party affiliation, but not all of them do. Multnomah County Elections does give clear instructions and I suspect that the instructions apply to every county – after all, Oregon elections law is state law, not local.

Here, for example, is what you’ll see at the Multnomah County Elections Office website:
“Party affiliation change – please update your party affiliation by completing a new registration card online (link is external) or print (link is external).”

[Kurth]

So, following up on my thoughts about changing political party affiliation from Dem to GOP in order to have some impact here in Oregon, I've run into a roadblock. I can't figure out how to do it! We seem to have a great website for updating voter registration information, but political party affiliation isn't included in the info you can update.

Any ideas on how I can become a card carrying member of the GOP so I can cast a vote for someone who's not Trump in the GOP primary?

https://blog.oregonlegalresearch.com/ho ... in-oregon/

RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGING YOUR OREGON VOTER REGISTRATION PARTY AFFILIATION:

Contact your county’s Elections office; they should almost always be the first place you turn anyway when you have questions about Elections and Voting. You can find links to your county’s elections info at the SoS County Elections Officials webpage.

Some county elections websites give very clear instructions on updating party affiliation, but not all of them do. Multnomah County Elections does give clear instructions and I suspect that the instructions apply to every county – after all, Oregon elections law is state law, not local.

Here, for example, is what you’ll see at the Multnomah County Elections Office website:
“Party affiliation change – please update your party affiliation by completing a new registration card online (link is external) or print (link is external).”

Thanks, Coop. I would have thought updating party affiliation would be easier than this. Not sure why it’s in anyone’s interest to make it a mystery.

[Kraken]

In MA, it used to be that you joined a party when you requested its primary ballot. After voting you had to go to the town clerk's office and fill out a card to change back to independent. I'm glad they did away with that.

[Kraken]

How fear switched parties during the pandemic

In 2016, ordinary Americans were offered two extreme views of the world and asked which one they identified with more. See where you fall:

Pollsters phrased the first view this way: “Our lives are threatened by terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants and our priority should be to protect ourselves.”

They phrased the second view this way: “It’s a big, beautiful world, mostly full of good people, and we must find a way to embrace each other and not become isolated.”

Rivers said that even those who worked with him made fun of this question, calling it the kumbaya question. But, as it turned out, it was a powerful indicator.

The question, he said, “was almost as good as asking people how they’re going to vote.”

About 80 percent of people who identified with the more frightening view of the world voted for Donald Trump, and about 80 percent of people who identified with the kumbaya view of the world voted for Hillary Clinton.

And it’s important to note: Neither vision makes any mention of being pro-life or pro-choice. They take no stand on taxes or universal pre-K. Nor do they indicate whether we should worry that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere.

People had chosen their approach to the world, and once they identified which team (R or D) seemed aligned with that approach, their views flowed from that.

...

Republicans and Democrats aren’t as far apart on many issues as we think. For example, he said, lots of Republicans were worried about COVID in 2020 and supportive of the sorts of restrictions that Trump rejected. They supported school closures and the cancellation of sporting events in almost the same numbers as Democrats.

“And still almost none of them could pull the lever for Joe Biden... a white guy from Pennsylvania. Old. Completely unthreatening.”

Why?

“The issues don’t matter that much,” he said. “They’re kind of a sideshow to all of this. For most Republicans — and most Democrats too — anyone is better in their party than someone in the other party.”

...

But, wait! What if you listen to and read lots and lots of news? What if you’re really smart? Then you do vote based on the issues, right?

Hah, says Hetherington. He argues that people like that tend to use their intellect to justify almost any position adopted by their team. “What we find is that the people who get it wrong the most are the most partisan, but they’re also the smartest.”

So, what have the last two years of a pandemic taught us about this sort of entrenched partisanship?

COVID, Hetherington says, threw a weird wrench into what many scholars thought they knew about Democrats and Republicans. Conservatives who had embraced the-world-is-a-dangerous-place view espoused by Trump in 2015 and 2016 suddenly supported leaders who threw caution to the wind. Liberals who had rejected the idea of deferring to authority or fear became fearful and deferential to authority.

Hetherington says: Voters kind of started blowing his mind.

“I think all of us — political scientists and psychologists — who have been using this dangerous-world framework to understand American politics, we simply missed something.”

It seems, he says, that conservatives tend to worry more about threats from other people. Democrats, meanwhile, worry about different sorts of things, like global warming and infectious diseases.

But Hetherington believes that partisanship has influenced much of how we’ve behaved during the pandemic.

In 2020, when Trump said schools should reopen, a Boston-area friend — knowing that we live in one of the most anti-Trump states in the country — commented to me: “Crap. Now our schools aren’t going to reopen. Maybe if he had kept his mouth shut, there would have been a chance.”

[gbasden]

How fear switched parties during the pandemic

Hah, says Hetherington. He argues that people like that tend to use their intellect to justify almost any position adopted by their team. “What we find is that the people who get it wrong the most are the most partisan, but they’re also the smartest.”

I've seen this argument before. If only we looked at things pragmatically instead of having a team mentality. The problem is that when I look at Republican policy positions, they are diametrically opposed to anything I want.

* No government run health care, even if it means millions more people will have no coverage.
* Similarly, any sort of government assistance to the poor should be slashed.
* Roll back any sort of voting protections
* Remove any sort of protections for LGBTQ individuals, to the point of state action in Texas

etc. I know you all can make crazy lists yourselves. I don't vote for Republicans because they push for policies I think are harmful and unethical. I certainly don't love the Democrats or think of them as "my team". They are simply the only option left to me since voting Republican is completely unacceptable.