How do you relate to either party?
 

When I thought this question up a second ago it was originally "How do you relate to YOUR party?" In thinking about it however I never close the door on voting for someone based on their party affiliation. Though it does carry some weight I'm not sure how much it should or shouldn't.

Basically I'm finding it harder and harder to relate to the Democratic party but at the same time I find it difficult to relate to the Republican party. Looking at them both on all of their 'issues' stances I don't completely agree with either and neither do I expect to.

Primarily I am thinking of the current crop of Presidential candidates, since I am a democrat I look at them first and simply do not see anyone I could vote for. The closest is Kucinich who is most likely a looser (and will certainly not get the nomination).

I also look at the Republicans, though I am more and more against their party shenanigans (not that I condone the recent Democtatic party shenanigans) I don't really see a real LEADER in their crop either.

I'm still looking of course; I really want to vote for a good democrat but wouldn't hesitate much to vote for a good republican. The only real reason for that hesitation is that they Republicans have held the seat now for 8 years. Change for the sake of change is always wise but I have been very disappointed in the way this administration has handled itself. I don't believe it has been representative of my beliefs of being a "good guy" so to speak.

What do you think? How do you relate to your party or either party for that matter?

I don't think the 2008 election is going to be a very good one for either side.

I'll throw this out there too - for fun: I wish Grey Davis had not been recalled as he would likely be a good candidate for President who I would vote for. I also wish that Jeb had run instead of George. I lived in Florida while he was Governor for a while and I felt he was a decent leader, it is unfortunate that his family legacy have limited his chances in that respect.

Please try to be respectful of each other's views.

I don't relate to either. When most people get honest with themselves, they can't relate to them. They are out of touch with what most people would want to see. Its just the nature of the beast.

The sooner people stop saying "I am Republican" or "I am a Democrat" and start saying "Here's what I think should be done about this", the country will benefit.

It will never happen though.

So forever more, your vote is for either Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich.

Huh?

I am tempted to put this in as a quote of the year, just due to the futility of it. :D

Wanting to maintain my objectivity I've avoided party tags for as long as possible. However after a while you just can't keep sitting on the fence, gotta make the best of it, and try to change things from the inside.

With Michigan and Florida (two large swing states) not even allowed to have their votes counted this Democratic primary, I can see there is still a lot of work to do.

A total of 367 Democratic delegates shall not be counted in two states

A total 136 Republican delegates shall not be counted in five states.

We should all be counted, WTF is wrong with these two parties?

:D

Just trying to step out on the right foot.

I don't think our current system attracts the best and brightest to run for office. There are exceptions, of course, but the majority of politicians are more power-hungry than looking for the long-term good of our great country.

Games must be played on both sides- Far to the edges during the primarys to win the party's base, then being right down the center for the general election. It has an element of dishonesty built in.

I am disappointed with shenanigans on both sides. Elected officials should be held to a high standard. When their standards are sub-par, far below my own, it hurts everybody.

Both sides spend far too much energy pointing fingers at each other. Don't tell me how bad the other guy is, tell me why I should trust you with my tax dollars.

How far to the right, you whack-o?

i can't seem to relate to any of the parties, they don't seem care much about me either, except as a potential revenue source.
at this point i can't get see voting for any of them. i don't want to encourage them.

Amen to that!

Holy krap!

Double Amen to that.

Ramm... would you consider Dantilla as VP in your campaign?

What is his stance on gay marriage? :D;)

He is in the PNW... they love fudge pac... I mean they respect alternate lifestyles.

Top. :p

I agree with Mikester. I've heard some decent thoughts out of Dodd's mouth. Does he stand a chance? Kucinich is a very bright and well informed candidate but unfortunately that don't get 'er done. He should be in the inner circle of presidential advisors at the very least when the new cabinet forms.

I grew up in a staunch Republican family, but I'm so far away from that I'm not even a Democrat. Make sense, Mike? ;) :D

Grey Davis was a product of the Peter Principle. A good if not great public servant that got one position too far. He wasn't as bad as some, though. We could have weathered the storm if it weren't for Ahnold's grandstanding. However, if we are suckers enough, then we deserve what we get.

I could easily claim to be republican or democrat - I believe I am very moderate in general but there are some issues where I am very conservative and other where I am fairly liberal (notice the differing adjectives).

I claim to be a democrat but I'm not married to that claim. One problem right now I have with another Republican president is with Supreme court nominations. Still it isn't a deal breaker, my opinion is that Supreme court nominations should be approved based on their resume and not their party affiliation. I was all for John Roberts as he was a solid choice. I wasn't so hot on Tony but he is qualified. I would just hate to see the Supreme court go all conservative - but if the candidate is qualified I will not whine too much.

I'm not really a party guy.

I agree; he inherited some stuff that doomed him. He was not a GREAT leader but he was good and I believe he was genuine in his attempt to represent the people which is why I say what I do about him. I think the recall was a mistake and I voted against it.

You are also correct to say - we get what we deserve.

Why do we need to relate to either party?

I vote issues & candidates, not parties. Never have. Lifelong independent.

However, as time goes on I find myself increasingly more and more aligned with the Republican platform (in general) than the Democratic one. That's not to say there isn't plenty about the Republicans that disgusts me - there is.

There is no provision whatsoever for political parties in the Constitution. As such, I fail to see how they're allowed to dictate so much of what happens in government and particularly with respect to elections. Abolishing these "machines" would be a great populist first step in regaining control of government, although I've pretty much given up hope of that ever happening in the USA.

The Constitution was designed assuming that each state would act much like political parties do today. The framers fully expected to have 13 candidates for president (one from each of the 13 original states). Much of their effort was put into how to choose one of those as president without alienating the other 12 states. And what happened? Political parties formed that reached across state lines. Mostof the framers concerns never materialized, and we have a Constitution that is ill-prepared to deal with what has pretty much been the political reality in this country (that the political parties run the show).

I never have heard of the assumption you stated above. Any reference(s) for that?

Fair question, but no.

It was something one of my college history professors asserted and I pretty much took as truth. I have no idea if this was something that he thought up or read elsewhere.

Sounds like a pretty good idea if there are 13 states, not 50. We better keep moving forward, not back into the 18th century.

The political parties we have today to me are like Unions for voters. They all get together and try to get as much of what those who are active want. The folks who are not active or not a member can take a hike.

It stands to reason that folks with like desires would organize but with our two party system each party is made of members who have very dissimilar desires.

For example; neither party can say they are both 100% against abortion - they both have significant numbers in either direction. I don't believe we will ever be able to totally agree on that one.

Still, if a political candidate is a member of a party then he basically has some interest in that party and at some point will "tow the party line" on some topic instead of voting for his constituent's best interests. So, that is why it matters to me to some extent what party they are in. These days however it seems that neither party could be labeled "conservative."

Much to my dismay, I am completely and utterly finished with the 2 party system. I am neither Rep or Dem and have always voted issues. Now with my vote, I will cast only for a third party candidate. I know that they will not be elected but if enough groundswell support for a viable alternative is shown, maybe in my lifetime a third party will emerge.
Call me disenfranchised.

Wide.

Me?, I am going to my boss's big Christmas party, that is a must go to party! Lots of good stuff, big manhattans and french wine. Huge shrimp and a monster standing rib roast. And a designated driver(wife) to boot!!:D

If the Republican party was really about small federal gov't and states rights and not about legislating morality, I'd be a Republican.

The simple fact that they want to outlaw a woman's right to make decisions affecting their body keeps me from voting Republican. Then along comes pro-choice Rudy. I could vote for him.

Repub party for small federal government? I can barely remember those days.

I'm pretty unhappy with the Republican party right now, they have made a whole lot of major errors in the past few decades.

When it comes down to it though, I just cannot at all bring myself to support how far left the Democrats have become. I guess it's sorta the least of two evils for me.

Both political parties represent the status quo. Nobody gets to be President that represents change.

The concept that two opposing parties with different agendas will balance out was on purpose and by design.
it'd detailed in the federalist papers. It is intended to handcuff the politicians to a certain extent preventing then from making too much change. Only when the change is so necessary that both parties want it and support it will a fast and easy change be made.

I'm a republican.

I disagree. The 12th amendment screwed it up. The initial system was a general free for all with President going to the one with the most votes and VP going to the one with the 2nd greatest total. This ensured that the VP would be an automatic opposition to the sitting president. Presidents couldn't count on the VP to work with them. The 12th amendment put the 2 together on the ballot, and this ENSURED that the party was what you were voting for, not the men. Remember how a ticket used to be "balanced" by the VP? Northern Industrialist balanced by a Southern plantation owner?

I would like to see the repeal of the 12th amendment and go back to the free for all.

Mud wrestling for President. What a concept. We would've had women Presidents from the get go. :)

In federalist papers, #76, Alexander Hamilton (one of the guys who designed and wrote the constitution) said:

The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.'' This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

Basically he was advocating the two (or more) party system suggesting the the wants and needs of a party are more relavent than the wants and needs of a single man.
In order to satisfy a party, that single man would have to represent many instead of just himself.

Having opposing parties fighting it out was intentionally designed into our constitution and in the design of our government.