A Question for Everyone Here.

[Free Bird]

Democrats- If Mitch McConnell had a D after his name, would you still venomously hate him? If Hillary Clinton had an R after name, would you still treat her like the best thing since sliced bread? Republicans- if Rick Scott had a D after his name, would you still support him? If Charlie Crist still had an R, would you still be opposing him? I am starting to notice from the hyperpartisan hackery on this site that people are more concerned with winning than what the candidates have to say? A poll showing a Democrat lead, even the most despicable Democrats like Pat Quinn will be met with cries of joy from Democrats here, even if they know that Pat is a horrible person. The same applies with Republicans and Rick Scott. That is part of the reason I switched my avatar color. Am I perfect? No. For all intents and purposes, I should be supporting Orman, but something in the back of my head still wants Roberts to pull through. On the other hand, Jeanne Shaheen, Ron Wyden, AND Brian Sandoval are personal figures of admiration to me, and they are different parties. Just something to think of. Are you really supporting a candidate when you cry DOMINATING, or are you supporting a letter?

[IceSpear]

This question can't really be answered properly since changing their party affiliation would presmably wildly change other things as well. For example, if Mitch McConnell was a Democrat, would he still be the Republican Senate leader and an obstructionist? Obviously all Democrats would still hate him.

[Mr. Smith]

I'll answer that question by first adding this,...technically speaking I should've named myself LiberalMorm, or LDSLiberal or NOTALLMORMONSAREREGRESSIVE, but I figured since I usually vote Democrat while they still combat the right-wing of the US (I'd be right-wing albeit centre-right without hesitating on the other side of the pond)...this name seemed prudent enough.

And yes I'd loathe Mitch McConnell, and Rick Perry, and Rick Scott regardless,because I'm sorry but everything they stand for just disgusts me. More and more as the GOP tilts as whole farther and farther right and towards plutocracy and corruption, the more synonymous it is to find the opposing party to that shift very palatable. And in the end that's all the Democrats are, opposing the absurd regressive lilt...NOT conservative, Gerald Ford was conservative, Ronald Reagn and Bill Clinton were conservative, REGRESSIVE.

Clinton and Quinn may Democrats be, they are far from my favorites and even hardly any better. But they still support social policies and to a very very minor extent economic policies that are at least somehwat grounded in reality and not Voodoo/Reaganomics.

I detest Quinn actually,but at least he throws out some likable policies,...Rauner doesn't offer that.


I've gone on and on about my disappointment in Obama for caving in to fake-centrism rather than offering anything actually practical or sticking to his guns. But at the end of the day he seems somewhat reality rooted, as a person he still seems affable.

I can't say that about the average GOP politician anymore. They all seem to have a serious hatred for those outside the bubble, they refer to their opponents as vermin or devil spawn.

People like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Mark Kirk are serious exceptions,not the norm. Whereas with the Dems, the Alan Graysons and Joe Liebermans and Charlie Crists...they don't make the majority.

Do I wish it were different? Certainly, and once upon a time (even as recent as before 2004) it wasn't that way. There was Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Ben Nelson, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Zell Miller...scumbags first and foremost...then there was Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ron Wyden, Arlen Specter, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy all respectable even if I didn't agree with them on all points.

But every since 2006, it seems the GOP have pretty much been throwing out worse and worse candidates to the point where under most circumstances...ya' got me it IS a letter by your line of thinking. I prefer to think of it as more as voting against the regressive candidate though.

That said if I see an Independent more New Dealian than the Democrat,I'm all for him or her. I definitely like Angus King more than the Democrat he ran against. I like Larry Pressler now more than Rick Weiland. Ned Lamont or the GOP candidate back '06 would've been better than Lieberman.

But until the GOP gets their act together,and as long as overall they're all practically crooks, I'm going with the one that doesn't espouse Tea-baggery or Reaganism...or is at least the cleanest of it.

Ideally, everyone would vote by ideology rather than party,and occasionally cross the line if the ideologically opposed candidate seems better fit and more respectable.

But right now ideology is party, and it's Regressive GOP vs everyone else these days.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

This question can't really be answered properly since changing their party affiliation would presumably wildly change other things as well.

This.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This question can't really be answered properly since changing their party affiliation would presumably wildly change other things as well.

This.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is a dumbass question. It's like asking "If Barack Obama was a Republican and Mitt Romney was a Democrat would you still vote for the same person you did in 2012?" If Obama was a Republican and Romney was a Democrat they'd be completely indistinguishable to how they are now.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If Josef Stalin wasn't a notorious communist dictator, but in fact a farmer from Wisconsin; would you still venomously hate him?

[Indy Texas]

FWIW, I liked Charlie Crist when he was a Republican, I liked him when he was an independent and I like him as a Democrat.

[Sol]

FWIW, I liked Charlie Crist when he was a Republican, I liked him when he was an independent and I like him as a Democrat.

Why would you like Charlie Crist at all? You didn't strike me as the kind who approved of hypocrites...

[Antonio the Sixth]

What a dumb question. If Mitch McConnell had a D next to his name, he would have been a crucial ally to Obama, rather than the evil mastermind that managed to stall most of his agenda. So obviously there would be no problem at all.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Yeah. Mitch McConnell with a D after his name wouldn't have been the Mitch McConnell we know. This question is idiotic.

[King]

If Mitch McConnell were a hot 20 year old coed, would  you sleep with her?

[KCDem]

Can't tell if OP is dumb or really dumb.

[Slander and/or Libel]

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped?

[Free Bird]

Can't tell if OP is dumb or really dumb.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle

[bedstuy]

The two parties are divided ideologically.  You can point to tiny exceptions, but the parties are basically sorted by ideology left-right.  On top of that, the last moderate Republicans were purged by 2006-2008.  So, if you vote Republican at the national level, you're voting for conservative policies. 

Based on that, I don't see how you could possibly be surprised by people rooting for Democrats to win in every race.  If you want people who will vote for Barack Obama's agenda in Congress, you can only vote for Democrats, right?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Beside that, the leadership in the congressional chambers holds a lot of power. There are times when I would cheer on a Democrat I agreed with almost not at all if he/she was prepared to vote for the Democratic leadership in the chamber at large. The leadership is more important than a single vote.

But like bedstuy noted, those considerations rarely come into play because the parties have been fairly efficiently sorted.

[badgate]

Can't tell if OP is dumb or really dumb.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats-  If Hillary Clinton had an R after name, would you still treat her like the best thing since sliced bread?

LOL

[Franzl]

It's quite a good development that the US seems to be increasingly adhering to party discipline. It's just that certain institutions like the Senate are so archaic that they make it virtually impossible to govern without a broad consensus for everything. But I'm hopeful that this will be changed in the not so distant future.

[TDAS04]

Democrats- If Mitch McConnell had a D after his name, would you still venomously hate him? If Hillary Clinton had an R after name, would you still treat her like the best thing since sliced bread?

Many Democrats here don't like Harry Reid, and "Hillarybots" tend to be ridiculed.

[Paul Kemp]

Great thread.