I didn’t say they get elected soley on these issues. I said that when republicans combine these issues with their support of fewer/reduced taxes, they appeal to enough voters to get elected.
I can’t remember a candidate who got elected by campaigning on one single issue like taxes. Some tea party backed candidates came close, with their ad nauseum complaining about government deficits, but even they had other issues they touched on (cap-and-trade, for instance).
Democrats do the same thing, obviously. Obama’s campaign in '08 centered around jobs and the economy. But that’s not all he talked about. A lot of people liked the fact that he said he would close Gitmo, for instance. In doing so he reached a larger audience, and expended his base of followers. This is standard political modus operandi. Remember that Simpsons episode where Homer is elected boss trash collector by making a shitload of promises that convinced everyone to vote for him?
They’re called campaign promises, and they usually are broken if the candidate wins
That is how politicians get elected. By making as many promises as they can, to appeal to as many people as they can. No sane person will vote for a one-trick pony, although sometimes that is not obvious.
Again, people who say that republicans (or whoever) get elected based only on their anti-tax stance (or any single issue) is walking (pontificating?) blind.
Also, I can’t help this, but why are you even asking this question? The republicans who won last Year were almost completely unified in their claims that a), government is too big (ambiguous, may or may not have anything to do with taxes), b) government spends too much (neither here nor there if you are talking about taxes), and c), we need to reduce the deficit (this is the only time taxes were usually brought up - reducing the deficit without raising taxes). I’m not about to get in to a debate on these statements, but even a staunch conservative must admit the the freshman republicans were voted into office by discussing MORE THAN ONE issue while on the campaign trail. Failure to have done so would have guaranteed defeat.
I might have been in grade school in 1992, but even I know that you’re using revisionist history. Clinton might have run on changing welfare but he didn’t do jack squat about it when he won the presidency. Did you not hear of the Republican Contract With America? Twice the Republican controlled congress passed welfare reform bills and twice Clinton vetoed those bills. In fact, the only reason he didn’t veto the last welfare reform bill sent to him by Congress was because it was election time and he was looking to score brownie points with voters.
It’s funny how you don’t point out that welfare reform in the 1990s was mostly pushed for by Republicans, with the then president begrudgingly going along with it. It’s also funny how you don’t point out that, at the time, many Democrats and liberal leaning persons blasted welfare reform.
I’m sorry, but the above has little to do with what I said, which was that people vote in their self-interest. It’s like a seven paragraph tangent. None of that addresses my point.
I asked a question. Someone said people vote for the Republican part because, essentially, they don’t know any better and it’s not in their best interest to do so. I point out that such an argument is inherently ridiculous, as people tend to vote for the party which provides them the most benefit; not for the party that agrees with them on social issues (social issues rank far lower on the scale of things voters care about than do economic issues). Someone trots out gay marriage and abortion and a host of other social issues for reasons unknown to me. When I point out that a minority of voters are single-issue voters-- and that the single-issue voter street works both ways-- it gets ignored.
I don’t get it, but it’s probably just a way to deflect from the original topic.
Because Republicans have cast their views in moral absolutes. Liberal’s aren’t asked why they have their view, but why they’ve chosen to sin and hate America.
We have a horrible healthcare system in the US. Gov, Shumlin in Vermont is trying too install a single payer system that is not tied to employment. The Repubs will really spend a fortune making sure it does not happen. They after all do not work for the people.
You say people vote for the party that may provide them them the most benefit. That is exactly my point, but what I am saying is that benefit, whatever it may be, is different to different people. Some people feel that gun rights are the most important thing in the universe, and vote accordingly. Don’t believe me? Google ‘National Rifle Association’, read some of the statistics, and tell me that gun rights are not at the top of the list for millions of voters. Similarly with people who feel deeply about gay marriage and abortion. A candidate’s stance on these issues can be more important than their stance on fiscal issues. People will vote according to their beliefs.
For many, perhaps a majority in certain areas, social issues are the issues that provide them with the most benefit.
Short answer: The wealthy have a lot of money. They can afford to contribute money to candidates who will represent their special interests. And they can afford to pay for the marketing that will convince enough voters to vote for those candidates.
The modern conservative movement was born when somebody realized that if advertising can convince people to smoke cigarettes, why shouldn’t it be able to convince people to vote Republican? You don’t actually have to be good for the voters; you just have to convince them you’re good.
In Wisconsin, there is a recall o0f the right wing crazies. Americans for Prosperity is passing out absentee ballots. The ballots say to return them by Aug. 11. The election is Aug. 9. The ballots are being passed out to likely Dem voters. AfP is a right wing ,Koch financed group. Can’t have those poorer people exercising their voting rights.
Classic Republican fearmongering - making noise about people who might vote illegally as an excuse to false-positive thousands from voting perfectly legally. When was the last time there was a ballot-stuffing scandal, anyway? Or dead people casting votes? Didn’t that go out with “Landslide Lyndon?” Since the days of Nixon, the Republicans have gone the other way with “dirty tricks” and such, only now it’s gone from screwing with Democratic candidates to screwing with potential Democratic voters. Bravo.
He was not rich and had a snowball’s chance in hell of ever becoming rich. But he was inordinately concerned about taxation policies “when” he (inevitably) struck it rich.
I don’t see that addressing the main point that I made in post #57. You claimed that blacks and the poor vote for Democrats because they benefit from federal programs and don’t have to pay for them. In #57 I listed the federal programs that have gotten the most new money in written years and pointed out that on the whole, they didn’t seem to be targeted to blacks or to the poor. In fact, quite the opposite, they seemed for the most part targeted towards the demographic that leans most heavily Republican: rich, white guys. Your post about retirees in the sun belt being the cause for the imbalance in net federal cash flows is interesting but doesn’t really address my point.
I know there was some grumbling from some gun owners when Obama was elected, but when was the last time gun control was really an issue in presidential elections? 1996?
So… Why do Democrats vote Democrat? Going by the logic of this thread, it must be:
Because they’re in a union and want to vote themselves more power.
because they’re poor and want more stuff from the government.
If they’re not poor, they’re scared they might be poor, and therefore want government to protect them.
They hate rich people, and want to punish them.
They want to use government to take for them by force what they can’t get through skill or hard work.
Does that describe all the lefties here? Why do rich people vote for Democrats then? After all, everyone votes for their own self-interest, right? There’s no possibility that people could vote based on morals or philosophy or an honest belief in the right mode of government, right?
Or is it only Democrats that vote based on ethics and their morality, while Republicans must vote based on stupidity, or fear, or being brainwashed, or self interest?
What a crock. The self-righteousness of some of you is off the scale.
For the record, I’ve been an advocate of small government my entire life, and I like gay people fine, I’m not religious, and I was poor for the majority of the years I’ve been alive. I have numerous friends who feel the same way and come from similar backgrounds.
So why do I support ‘the right’?
Because I believe that small government is better than large government.
Because I believe that individuals have a right to their own property, and should only be taxed to pay for their share of the common costs of the government needed to protect those right and provide a basic infrastructure.
Because I believe that there can be no such thing as an ‘economic right’ such as a ‘right’ to health care, or a ‘right’ to a living wage, because the only way to provide those ‘rights’ is to trample on the rights of someone else.
Because I don’t believe that committees of elites are capable of running a country as well as can the collected knowledge of the public, suitably directed through private markets.
Because I believe that too much government is destructive to the character of the people and the social order.
Because I believe that government that becomes too large is a threat to the financial and political freedom of the citizenry.
Because I believe, as John Locke did, that humans are born free and the proper form of the social contract is to maximize the freedom of all, and not to turn citizens into serfs who must serve a ‘higher order’.
Because I believe that people work best when they are free to make choices and use their own knowledge and experience, rather than have those choices forced on them from above.
Because I believe that economies are complex systems which cannot be understood or controlled from the top down, but must be allowed to adapt and be self-governing through a continual process of bottom-up feedback, and this requires free markets and free people.
None of these reasons has anything to do with fear, or bigotry, or ignorance. It’s not self-interest, because long before I made a decent wage I would have benefited from a more left-wing government but worked to keep government small.
So let’s can the snarky attacks masquerading as logic. If you want to know why people on the right believe what they do, try listening to them instead of building caricatures that are easy and fun to tear down and mock.
You have quite a list up there then criticize others for a lack of logic?
We have seen what your ideal produces in the early 1900s. You did not state that explicitly but that is the result.
You are a “true believer”. Your philosophy trumps a rational assessment of how things work and have worked. Little different from someone who asserts the Bible is the inerrant word of God and should be followed. Never mind actual rebuttals. It is a belief so must be true.
You believe in a magical free market that will solve all problems taking no account of the realities of a modern society nor do you have a sense of responsibilities members of a society have to each other. Every man for himself is how I read your take and screw the consequences.
Your notions should be guides to buffer against an out of control government but as actual policies they are provably bad ideas. “Provably” because we have seen and do see the results of such thinking and they produce horrible results. Not just for others but for you too.
Has Sam Stone opted out of the Alberta Health Care system and seen to it that he does not benefit in any way from the existence of same?
Why would someone who claims to believe as Locke does support - with some vigor - the Republican policies of kidnapping and torture as Sam Stone has done?
ETA: Three! Three questions. What is “suitable” direction, and who decides?
