WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
I honestly don't think we have that kind of time to play with. We're just seeing the beginnings of some truly Biblical climate occurrences.
Republicans have refused to address any of the issues that desperately need attention and block every effort to address any problem at all for decades.
Democrats talk big but offer weak tea solutions to big problems.
It's kind of a good cop bad cop thing...you choose which is which, you're screwed either way.
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.
I think you are projecting your own studied independence on The Independents. I bet most of them have little awareness of politics, and just vote for celebrities or the snappiest dresser. Those who think a lot about political positions and lament partisanship are a very small minority. Lots more sports fans who would rather watch ESPN than PBS. They are easily manipulated by demagogues like Trump with "simple-but-wrong" catch-phrases. Trump had to practically destroy our democracy to lose their support. If he had been just a bit less blatant, he would have won in 2020.
I think you're right. Independents, the non-affiliate don't pay much attention to politics until an election nears. They also tend to vote, presidential wise for the more charismatic candidate. although the last two elections, none were charismatic. Independents went twice for Obama, he had charisma up the ying yang. They also went twice for G.W. Bush, very close on both counts. Not that G.W. was charismatic, he was more of a down home boy vs. two statues in Gore and Kerry. Now Bill Clinton was one charismatic candidate, independents voted for him twice over G.H.W. and a dour Dole.
Reagan, another very charismatic candidate who swamped both Carter and Mondale among independents. But independent have a habit of voting one way in presidential elections, then voting for the opposite party's congressional candidates in the next which I outlined before as for the percentages.
Elections to them are what I call beauty contests or popularity contests. Yet, they decide elections, at least on the national level. Neither party's base is large enough to do it on their own.
Actually, I find Democrats and Republican dull and boring. I know how'll they will vote. Independents, now there's a challenge. Little awareness is absolutely correct. Watchers of ESPN, their favorite TV shows, etc. yep. Most may not even watch the news, maybe a minute here or there. They don't know what C-Span is, Yet they do decide elections.
I totally agree on how you portrayed them. Yet it seems the Democrats are trying to get more and more of these non-attentive people to vote. Interesting.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.
Hey that's ME! Except that even I can see that Dems are actually trying to help Americans.
But they're going about it completely wrong and are doomed to fail.
What's going on across the aisle is pretty much sheer madness at this point. You're either a part of it or you aren't. What we've seen over the last five decades or so is that republicans have stopped governing. They are the anti-government party who wants an authoritarian strong man to lead them. I've totally washed my hands of all that nonsense.
The ummm...madness on the Dem side is to raise wages, make college affordable, provide healthcare where it's needed...that sort of thing. You know...actually taking care of Americans rather than the American corporate class.
I'll agree the Republicans are great at being the party out of power, but lousy when it comes to governing. Trump was just a caretaker, he didn't accomplish a thing. At least legislative wise. He didn't even try. Trump is still very much disliked by independents, But congressional parties are pretty much even, independents disdain both. Independents view them equally, 25% view both congressional party members favorably, 67% unfavorably,
Okay, a shot in the dark here. I don't think it's what each party is trying to do or not trying to do. It all boils down to the perception that neither party is willing to work with each other for the betterment of the country. Reality plays little to nothing in perception which comes back to the link I posted on compromise. It also comes down to wanting a functional government, with both parties at loggerheads, their view, perception is we don't have a functioning government. Nothing to back this up, like I said, a shot in the dark. I probably didn't hit anything, not even the barn door. But perceptions play a vital role in how independents vote.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.
Hey that's ME! Except that even I can see that Dems are actually trying to help Americans.
But they're going about it completely wrong and are doomed to fail. Balance What's going on across the aisle is pretty much sheer madness at this point. You're either a part of it or you aren't. What we've seen over the last five decades or so is that republicans have stopped governing. They are the anti-government party who wants an authoritarian strong man to lead them. I've totally washed my hands of all that nonsense.
The ummm...madness on the Dem side is to raise wages, make college affordable, provide healthcare where it's needed...that sort of thing. You know...actually taking care of Americans rather than the American corporate class.
I'll agree the Republicans are great at being the party out of power, but lousy when it comes to governing. Trump was just a caretaker, he didn't accomplish a thing. At least legislative wise. He didn't even try. Trump is still very much disliked by independents, But congressional parties are pretty much even, independents disdain both. Independents view them equally, 25% view both congressional party members favorably, 67% unfavorably,
Okay, a shot in the dark here. I don't think it's what each party is trying to do or not trying to do. It all boils down to the perception that neither party is willing to work with each other for the betterment of the country. Reality plays little to nothing in perception which comes back to the link I posted on compromise. It also comes down to wanting a functional government, with both parties at loggerheads, their view, perception is we don't have a functioning government. Nothing to back this up, like I said, a shot in the dark. I probably didn't hit anything, not even the barn door. But perceptions play a vital role in how independents vote.
I agree with the concept that it is "functional government" more than "compromise" that motivates independent voters. But, then they vote against that paradigm in off-year elections thinking "balance" - which doesn't work, but brings gridlock. To really achieve a functional government, they need to vote consistently for one party (currently, the Democrats). As noted, the GOP has failed to govern every time they've had control since the 1980s, thanks mostly to Reagan's pledge to be incompetent. It's the only promise he ever fulfilled.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
As noted, the GOP has failed to govern every time they've had control since the 1980s, thanks mostly to Reagan's pledge to be incompetent.
I'm nominating that for entry in the Nicely Turned Phrase of the Year competition!
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. R. Buckminster Fuller
Republicans are great at being the party out of power, but lousy when it comes to governing.
So what's the point of a political party which invariably fails at governing?
Most political parties operate under a platform that is roughly a list of what they and their members support and hope to accomplish while in office.
Republicans abandoned that notion in favor of just doing whatever Trump wanted. They have laid out no plans for the future. No plans to mitigate the pandemic. No plans to mitigate climate change. No plans to improve the economy. No plans to improve immigration, no plans to improve healthcare. No plans. No ideas. No proposals. No legislation. No governance and no candidates who appear poised to govern if elected.
What exactly is the point beyond obstruction and owning the libs? Functioning government appears to be just one big joke to them and they will stop at nothing to prevent it.
That leaves the unwashed middle, call them independents, perhaps moderates, certainly the non-affiliated. Those basically peeved at both parties and how both parties govern for only their base and not America as a whole.
Hey that's ME! Except that even I can see that Dems are actually trying to help Americans.
But they're going about it completely wrong and are doomed to fail. Balance What's going on across the aisle is pretty much sheer madness at this point. You're either a part of it or you aren't. What we've seen over the last five decades or so is that republicans have stopped governing. They are the anti-government party who wants an authoritarian strong man to lead them. I've totally washed my hands of all that nonsense.
The ummm...madness on the Dem side is to raise wages, make college affordable, provide healthcare where it's needed...that sort of thing. You know...actually taking care of Americans rather than the American corporate class.
I'll agree the Republicans are great at being the party out of power, but lousy when it comes to governing. Trump was just a caretaker, he didn't accomplish a thing. At least legislative wise. He didn't even try. Trump is still very much disliked by independents, But congressional parties are pretty much even, independents disdain both. Independents view them equally, 25% view both congressional party members favorably, 67% unfavorably,
Okay, a shot in the dark here. I don't think it's what each party is trying to do or not trying to do. It all boils down to the perception that neither party is willing to work with each other for the betterment of the country. Reality plays little to nothing in perception which comes back to the link I posted on compromise. It also comes down to wanting a functional government, with both parties at loggerheads, their view, perception is we don't have a functioning government. Nothing to back this up, like I said, a shot in the dark. I probably didn't hit anything, not even the barn door. But perceptions play a vital role in how independents vote.
I agree with the concept that it is "functional government" more than "compromise" that motivates independent voters. But, then they vote against that paradigm in off-year elections thinking "balance" - which doesn't work, but brings gridlock. To really achieve a functional government, they need to vote consistently for one party (currently, the Democrats). As noted, the GOP has failed to govern every time they've had control since the 1980s, thanks mostly to Reagan's pledge to be incompetent. It's the only promise he ever fulfilled.
There's a long history that shows independents or swing voters don't or won't continue to vote for one party. If they did, they wouldn't be independents/swing voters. They'd be members of one or the other party or at least affiliated with one or the other.
It might be, here we go again, the two major parties won't work together, so let's make a change. Maybe the other party, the out of power party will work with the other party, we know the party in power won't.
Interesting is when the Democrats controlled the House for 40 straight years, 1955-94, the change occurred at the presidential level. Eisenhower, then Nixon/Ford then Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Interrupted only by JFK, LBJ and Carter. 28 out of the 40 years of straight Democratic house control, the president was a Republican. Divided government. Perhaps subconsciously, independents don't like one party in full control?
1994 Democrats in full control, presidency, senate and House, independents elected republicans to gain control of the house and senate for the first time in 40 years. 2006 Republicans in full control, presidency, senate and House, independents elect Democrats to regain control of the House and Senate 2010 Democrats in full control of the presidency, House and Senate, independents elect Republicans to the house giving them control there and in 2014 complete their ouster by giving republicans control of the senate. 2018 Republicans in full control, presidency, house and senate. Independents vote Democratic control of the house and in 2020 give the senate to Democrats plus electing a Democratic president.
If not for 9-11, I'd wager independents would have given Democrats control of the House and senate in 2002 instead of waiting until 2006.
I don't know why. Why independents would vote for a president and then in the next midterm, vote against him and his party. What I do know is every president since 1935 has lost house seats in his first midterm with 2002 being the lone exception. Independents will vote for a president one year and in the next election vote for the opposing party in congress. A very long traditional voting habit for independents.
Perhaps there is a reason. Independents/swing voters have a huge dislike, even a disdain for both major parties. If they didn't, they wouldn't be independents. They'd belong to one or the other. So it may be as simple as independents taking out their dislike, distrust, disdain on the party in power or control. The party in power, in control is usually, almost always the party that gets most of the media's attention, the star attraction in the news, the headliner, the star, the party out of power, mostly an afterthought. Maybe, anyone's guess is as good as mine.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Nate also includes many interesting articles from a non-partisan position.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
