Why do people continue to vote for Republicans?

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

183 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote polycarp2:

The Republican Party of Lincoln and the Democratic Party of FDR are both quite dead.

Maybe it time you stop living in the past.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

It's not about low information voters. It's about misinformed voters. It's about twisting facts to suit an agenda. Your "salesman" analogy is pretty close. Most salesman will say whatever they have to in order to make a sale. So it goes in politics. Especially in the case of the Replican politics. Republicans have a difficult sell. They have to convince the common person that poor people are only poor through choice. They have to convince the common person that a salary that's appropriate for a good living and good benefits is not fair. They have to convince the common person that rich people need as many breaks as possible in order for the common person to prosper. They have to convince the common person that raping the earth of all of it's natural resources is good for everybody.

It's a tough sell but they have it perfected. They've taken the best of the Carnegie sales tricks and woven them into politics. Anyone who can convince you to vote against your own best interests and the country's best interests time after time after time is a genius slimeball. Once again, they have it perfected.

I think you will agree that most people vote for who they think will put the most money in their pocket. You may think that there are a lot of people voting against their own best interest when they vote Republican, but obviously they disagree. That's why they vote the way they do. If you truly do not understand why anyone below the top 1% wage earners vote Republican, read this week's Newsweek's cover story, "Why Barak has to go".

You have just exposed the reason that YOU vote. I would like to think that people were smart enough to vote for who they think will uphold our liberties and justice. If everyone votes based on money then we have failed as a democratic republic and as a country.

You don't think that the economy is the number one issue in every presidential compaign? Bill Clinton is famous for having "It's the economy, stupid" hung up on every wall in every campaign office he had. And that focus certainly worked for him.

Every presidential exit poll I have ever seen shows that 70-80% of the voters vote for the person they feel will be best for the economy. At the end of the day that translates to their personal economy. Am I missing something here?

This is why Democracy is in trouble. Forgive me if you have read this before, but I go back to what my Government teacher told us in high school. 100 people in a room, true Democracy. One guy has a $100 bill, everyone has nothing. It is put up for vote, should that guy have to go to the bank, come back with ten $10 bills and throw them up in the air? if you get your hands on one, it's yours. Do you think that would pass? Hell yes it will pass!. And at the end of the day, you will go from one happy person to ten happy people. But the 90 people without money will get together and vote that all those ten dollar bills have to get broken down into $1 bills and thrown into the air. And on and on it goes.

Democracy is in trouble because we have set up social programs that we cannot possibly pay for going forward. Yet any attempt to cut them back at all is met with howls of protest. All the while the deficit keeps piling up, and the interest we have to pay on that debt keeps building. And sorry we simply cannot "tax the rich" and/or "cut the military" to solve the problem, there is not enough money there to do the job.

Meanwhile we are stuck (by our own fault) with a bunch of career politicians whose number one goal is their own re election. And I for one, do not see how we can get out of this death spiral we are in now.

I hope you will note that I have not pointed any fingers at one side of the aisle or the other. Both sides of the aisle have their problems, IMHO.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am

Voting for who will "put the most money in their pocket" is quite different than voting for a robust economy. If I vote for who is going to put the most money in MY pocket then I'm being pretty damn selfish. In order to fix an ailing economy may very well require I have a little LESS money in my pocket to get it done. They are two different subjects. The economy is huge but so is immigration and wars around the world. Basic human rights for everyone should never take a back seat to the economy. That stupid government teacher story is part of the problem. A democracy doesn't work anything like that. As a matter of fact the people with money in this country ( 1% ) are the ones in charge of WHAT we get to vote on. They are not going to let anyone vote on something like your analogy.

You are right about the career politicians. Unfortunately they are the only choices we have. A lot of really good men and women get into politics but in order for them to go anywhere in their careers they must check their morals at the door. Of course both sides of the aisle have their problems. Both end up owing somebody. I think that many people would vote differently if government didn't cost a dime from it's citizens. Most people would agree with universal healthcare and welfare for those who need it.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Voting for who will "put the most money in their pocket" is quite different than voting for a robust economy. If I vote for who is going to put the most money in MY pocket then I'm being pretty damn selfish. In order to fix an ailing economy may very well require I have a little LESS money in my pocket to get it done. They are two different subjects. The economy is huge but so is immigration and wars around the world. Basic human rights for everyone should never take a back seat to the economy. That stupid government teacher story is part of the problem. A democracy doesn't work anything like that. As a matter of fact the people with money in this country ( 1% ) are the ones in charge of WHAT we get to vote on. They are not going to let anyone vote on something like your analogy.

You are right about the career politicians. Unfortunately they are the only choices we have. A lot of really good men and women get into politics but in order for them to go anywhere in their careers they must check their morals at the door. Of course both sides of the aisle have their problems. Both end up owing somebody. I think that many people would vote differently if government didn't cost a dime from it's citizens. Most people would agree with universal healthcare and welfare for those who need it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the story my government teacher told in high school. I still think it is a great analagy, and a good example of why Democracy is in trouble. Everyone wants benefits out of the governemnt, but no one wants to pay for them. All the while, the deficit gets bigger and bigger.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Voting for who will "put the most money in their pocket" is quite different than voting for a robust economy. If I vote for who is going to put the most money in MY pocket then I'm being pretty damn selfish. In order to fix an ailing economy may very well require I have a little LESS money in my pocket to get it done. They are two different subjects. The economy is huge but so is immigration and wars around the world. Basic human rights for everyone should never take a back seat to the economy. That stupid government teacher story is part of the problem. A democracy doesn't work anything like that. As a matter of fact the people with money in this country ( 1% ) are the ones in charge of WHAT we get to vote on. They are not going to let anyone vote on something like your analogy.

You are right about the career politicians. Unfortunately they are the only choices we have. A lot of really good men and women get into politics but in order for them to go anywhere in their careers they must check their morals at the door. Of course both sides of the aisle have their problems. Both end up owing somebody. I think that many people would vote differently if government didn't cost a dime from it's citizens. Most people would agree with universal healthcare and welfare for those who need it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the story my government teacher told in high school. I still think it is a great analagy, and a good example of why Democracy is in trouble. Everyone wants benefits out of the governemnt, but no one wants to pay for them. All the while, the deficit gets bigger and bigger.

Most people want to work. Most people don't want handouts. Democracy is being undermined by multinational corporations and their financial backers who gladly use authoritarian and otherwise government-controlled economies for cheap labor.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote al3:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Voting for who will "put the most money in their pocket" is quite different than voting for a robust economy. If I vote for who is going to put the most money in MY pocket then I'm being pretty damn selfish. In order to fix an ailing economy may very well require I have a little LESS money in my pocket to get it done. They are two different subjects. The economy is huge but so is immigration and wars around the world. Basic human rights for everyone should never take a back seat to the economy. That stupid government teacher story is part of the problem. A democracy doesn't work anything like that. As a matter of fact the people with money in this country ( 1% ) are the ones in charge of WHAT we get to vote on. They are not going to let anyone vote on something like your analogy.

You are right about the career politicians. Unfortunately they are the only choices we have. A lot of really good men and women get into politics but in order for them to go anywhere in their careers they must check their morals at the door. Of course both sides of the aisle have their problems. Both end up owing somebody. I think that many people would vote differently if government didn't cost a dime from it's citizens. Most people would agree with universal healthcare and welfare for those who need it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the story my government teacher told in high school. I still think it is a great analagy, and a good example of why Democracy is in trouble. Everyone wants benefits out of the governemnt, but no one wants to pay for them. All the while, the deficit gets bigger and bigger.

Most people want to work. Most people don't want handouts.

You might be right there, maybe not, unfortunately there are more and more Americans walking around with a tremendous sense of entitlement. And the number of those kind of persons certainly seems to be increasing.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote Capital1:
Quote polycarp2:

The Republican Party of Lincoln and the Democratic Party of FDR are both quite dead.

Maybe it time you stop living in the past.

I have. That's why I don't keep insisting that the traditions of the parties are alive. They are both quite dead. The party of Lincoln is dead. The party of FDR is dead.

The two wings of the Corporate Party (Dems and Repubicans) bear no resemblance to either of them. People who live in the past think they do. The party of the people (Dems) is quite dead. Clinton gave it its final death blow.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Yes, when the executives who run banks, Wall Street, airlines, and hedge funds keep acting as though they are entitled to buy the govt, and pass laws that redistribute wealth and power back to the wealthy that is a problem.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Mauiman, I hope you got what Phaedrus is talking about. That is where the "entitlement" problem lies, not with people who think that a decent society would not leave people out of eating or healthcare, woould not evict families who have not committed the crimes, etc. Those who think it is ok to fuck over others within the rules are the "entitled' I see coming out these days. They once understood how to hide their predatory natures, but now they strut and preen about as if we were supposed to admire their predator feathers. Check out that Romney specimen. Tailfeathers to die for, as many have.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Bingo!

It isn't that they are against entitlements....it just depends on who is entitled to what. The wealthiest aren't entitlted to it all. Their entitlements programs, much greater than "entitlements" to the poor, should probably be done away with.

Being entitlted to a lower tax rate because you earn the bulk of your income exchanging financial paper rather than receiving a salary is one of them.

Financiers being entitled to bailouts while working people aren't is another.

There are many, many more.

Government of, by and for the few is a government out of balance.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Just because it 'was done' a certain way in the past is moot.

One Party, given a great leader, or the other, can work miracles.

No, the Democrats of the FDR ilk are here today, with us, just as Philip K Dick saw the Romans walking to and fro in our reality.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote Mauiman2:

We may all be idiots, but we idiots get to vote, and our vote counts just as much as the "well informed progressive" vote.

Sure, a lot of Republicans, libertarians, tea party people are well informed.

My argument proved that Obama was much more a conservative than most conservatives think, since his policies were so similiar to past conservatives such as Romney, Reagan and so on. So, I imagine, many conservatives are voting against Obama because they are misinformed.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2:

We may all be idiots, but we idiots get to vote, and our vote counts just as much as the "well informed progressive" vote.

Sure, a lot of Republicans, libertarians, tea party people are well informed.

My argument proved that Obama was much more a conservative than most conservatives think, since his policies were so similiar to past conservatives such as Romney, Reagan and so on. So, I imagine, many conservatives are voting against Obama because they are misinformed.

Wow, you and I must live on different planets! But you and I have been round and round on this one. If Obama is a conservative, then I am the man on the moon. We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote Phaedrus76:Yes, when the executives who run banks, Wall Street, airlines, and hedge funds keep acting as though they are entitled to buy the govt, and pass laws that redistribute wealth and power back to the wealthy that is a problem.

Last time I checked, executives in the private sector do not get a vote in congress.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote drc2:

Mauiman, I hope you got what Phaedrus is talking about. That is where the "entitlement" problem lies, not with people who think that a decent society would not leave people out of eating or healthcare, woould not evict families who have not committed the crimes, etc. Those who think it is ok to fuck over others within the rules are the "entitled' I see coming out these days. They once understood how to hide their predatory natures, but now they strut and preen about as if we were supposed to admire their predator feathers. Check out that Romney specimen. Tailfeathers to die for, as many have.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, I think both of you are off base. But I have no delusions of grandure here, you and I see the world very differently, so I hold out no hope of convincing you otherwise. I just don't think you understand businessmen and why they do what they do. You will find almost all long term successful businessmen are honest as the day is long. They are interested in growing their business first and foremost. They are interested in beating their competition, but no one should hold that against them. Are there exceptions, are there dishonest slimeballs in business? Of course there are, and of course those are the ones you hear about.

And BTW, you'll never hear my arguing for and business bailouts

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Phaedrus76:Yes, when the executives who run banks, Wall Street, airlines, and hedge funds keep acting as though they are entitled to buy the govt, and pass laws that redistribute wealth and power back to the wealthy that is a problem.

Last time I checked, executives in the private sector do not get a vote in congress.

True. Their lobbyists write their legislation for them and present it to Congress for a stamp of approval. Or as Prof. Wolin writes, "they rule without appearing to".

Republican Pres. Eisenhower could possibly be considered a conservative centerist. Obama governs far to the right of Ike...and is considered a socialist. by some. Almost funny to see a conservative standard-bearer labelled as such.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease'

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Polycarper, are you trying to infect everyone with your disease of nihilism?

Or, do you think nihilism makes you look smart?

Or, is it all just a big joke to you?

Go spit.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

Nihilism:

  1. total rejection of social mores: the general rejection of established social conventions and beliefs, especially of morality and religion
  2. belief that nothing is worthwhile: a belief that life is pointless and human values are worthless
  3. disbelief in objective truth: the belief that there is no objective basis for truth

--------------------- Probably since I adhere to seeking objective truth, that disqualifies me from being a nihilist.Sometimes that means a rejection of established conventions built upon untruths., Included in that is a search for the highest human values, sometimes thrown into the pit for less desireable ones. i heartily reject the American idea of placing a monetary value on a human life. One life is worth saving at a medical cost of a million bucks. Another not worth saving at a cost of $100. That's reflected in our health care system. I think placing a monetary value on human life is wrong...a personal morality that nihilists reject. Life isn't pointless...though we each give it our own individual meanings. I've always found it fascinating, though not always enjoyable.... as now. Living as the poorist among the nation's poorist isn't pleasant. It's life-threatening. But for the help of a neighbor, i'd be quite dead. Interesting, fascinating...and not always pleasant. Goading people into thinking outside of their boxes is one of the things i do. It's something one of my favorite teachers did many, many years ago. Some grow, some don't, some fear it. Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Phaedrus76:Yes, when the executives who run banks, Wall Street, airlines, and hedge funds keep acting as though they are entitled to buy the govt, and pass laws that redistribute wealth and power back to the wealthy that is a problem.

Last time I checked, executives in the private sector do not get a vote in congress.

True. Their lobbyists write their legislation for them and present it to Congress for a stamp of approval. Or as Prof. Wolin writes, "they rule without appearing to".

Republican Pres. Eisenhower could possibly be considered a conservative centerist. Obama governs far to the right of Ike...and is considered a socialist. by some. Almost funny to see a conservative standard-bearer labelled as such.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease'

Wow, another "Obama is a conservative" person on this board! You guys really do live on a different planet than I do.

Let's just say I disagree and leave it at that. Watch the movie 2016 and see if you still agree that Obama is a conservative.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am

Why would you make a movie called "2016" if you had all the ammunition you needed for a movie you could call "2012?" Or do the Mayans have a copyright on that number?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2:

We may all be idiots, but we idiots get to vote, and our vote counts just as much as the "well informed progressive" vote.

Sure, a lot of Republicans, libertarians, tea party people are well informed.

My argument proved that Obama was much more a conservative than most conservatives think, since his policies were so similiar to past conservatives such as Romney, Reagan and so on. So, I imagine, many conservatives are voting against Obama because they are misinformed.

Wow, you and I must live on different planets! But you and I have been round and round on this one. If Obama is a conservative, then I am the man on the moon. We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on.

Is that what you call avoiding the arguement, not responding to points, ignoring posts? Moving on?

Whatever.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

When the right responds to a point by explaining why they disagree with it...it's usually a pleasant surprise, and can begin a discussion over points presented. That doesn't happen very often.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

When the right responds to a point by explaining why they disagree with it...it's usually a pleasant surprise, and can begin a discussion over points presented. That doesn't happen very often.

I don't get involved in those "Obama policies are conservative" mostly because they are completely irrelevant. Obama is not Conservative. His policies are a poor reflection of his compromised position as President. Sawdust always said, and is absolutely correct, The office of President is bigger than any man. Obama's "conservative" policies are nothing more than a calculated political policy based on what he believed was the extreme extent that he could actually accomplish. Not a reflection of his true ideology.

So no conservative will look at his policies and think Obama is more conservative than we thought, we should vote for him.

No.... Obama didn't advocate universal health-care or even Single Payer because he would have NEVER got those though congress, so he compromised to the center to attempt to achieve something. That and he has to know that OBamaCare was never going to be sustainable, but puts in place the necessary structures for a full takeover at a later date.

What you call Obama conservative polices, I would call incrementalism

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am

Just don't call it liberal, progressive, or leftist.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital1:.. Obama is not Conservative. ... Obama's "conservative" policies are nothing more than a calculated political policy based on what he believed was the extreme extent that he could actually accomplish.

Of course. Your a Republican. You obviously don't believe in demonstratable facts.

That's the definition of low information.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:

Of course. Your a Republican. You obviously don't believe in demonstratable facts.

That's the definition of low information.

Actually I am conservative, not a republican. And I believe I have demonstrated a far better grasp of "Facts" than....... Well....... YOU.

Dr Econ says: Is that what you call avoiding the arguement, not responding to points, ignoring posts? Moving on?

Blah blah blah... o how we forget..

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am

Well, we have to remember that in the 50's and early 60's, some on the right called conservative Pres. Eisenhower a socialist or "commie". They wouldn't have liked Obama either, but they'd have been more comfortable with him.

Obama governs way to the right of Republican Pres. Eisenhower...a conservative labelled as a leftist by the extreme right of his day.

The nation has swung so far to the right, Ike would now be too liberal to even get the Dem. nomination..

I find it almost funny that many progressives call attempting to return to the conservative Eisenhower Presidency "progressive"....and ludricous that consrvatives call it leftist,

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

.

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Hell, poly, forget about Eisenhower, we're not even fighting to get back to Nixon, we're fighting to get back to first-term REAGAN!

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

M2, your link require getting registered with the ChiTrib. If you think it is really great stuff, summarize it for us. Otherwise, let me suppose that there might be a whole range of reasons to be disapointed or to disagree with how Obama has done his job. It could be Rahm blowback. It could be that Chicago is a hard city and one where Obama is hardly as well-connected or involved as the spinster Right wants us to believe. Michelle has better roots there.

Progressives have our own critique, but lets not suggest that the ChiTrib opinion piece was about the failure to kick the shit out of the Bush/Cheney gang and really "clean house." Lets suppose that it is about "the economy" without pinning the responsibility on the House and guys like, well more than like Ryan. Ryan. Yep, House Budget Committee Chair.

We can also be sure that it was full of approval for the Chicago School in its approach to development. See how that Chicago brand plays both ways.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

M2, your link require getting registered with the ChiTrib. If you think it is really great stuff, summarize it for us. Otherwise, let me suppose that there might be a whole range of reasons to be disapointed or to disagree with how Obama has done his job. It could be Rahm blowback. It could be that Chicago is a hard city and one where Obama is hardly as well-connected or involved as the spinster Right wants us to believe. Michelle has better roots there.

Progressives have our own critique, but lets not suggest that the ChiTrib opinion piece was about the failure to kick the shit out of the Bush/Cheney gang and really "clean house." Lets suppose that it is about "the economy" without pinning the responsibility on the House and guys like, well more than like Ryan. Ryan. Yep, House Budget Committee Chair.

We can also be sure that it was full of approval for the Chicago School in its approach to development. See how that Chicago brand plays both ways.

Sorry I did not realize that you had to register to get to the link, I'll take the post down. No need to summarize, most of the points have already been made here, remember this thread is "Why do people vote Republican?". I did not expect many to agree here, I was only answering the question.

And no, there was nothing in there about the Chicago Public Schools. Mr. Emanuel has a huge problem on his hands there, with the teachers threateneing to go on strike and the City having no money to give them any raises.

Political graft and corruption is very expensive, as both the City of Chicago and the State of Ilinois has found out.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am

In case you are still wondering why anyone would vote Republican, this article gives you some more good reasons why lots and lots of people will do that on Nov 6th.

Link removed since it required registation. Sorry about that!

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am

Both parties have embraced neo-liberalism. That's a conservative stance, not a liberal stance.

If you'd like to know just what neo-liberalism entrails, and the inevitable results, follow the process step by step that led to Argentina's collapse in 2001.

Both U.S. parties have embraced the same policies just as both major parties in Argentina did. It's a conservative stance, not a liberal one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm