# Partisanship and US presidential elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 17, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769 "2015-06-17T17:47:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Chauve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5daacb/32.png) [@Chauve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chauve)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/61 "2015-06-19T13:40:00Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > […]It’s important to note that it is _not_ the case that Republicans have moved to the right and Democrats to the the left. The Democrats have moved _to the right_; the Republicans have raced far beyond the right to something which has no polite name. If this isn’t clear, consider Obamacare – almost the exact same program was proposed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans in 1971, but rejected by Democrats as not liberal enough. Now we have Nixon’s program, passing Congress without a single Republican vote! And yet, the country as a whole is definitely way more more liberal today than it was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. In the bad old days we had segregation, women couldn’t control their own bodies, no gay marriage (in fact gays could be jailed and locked in insane asylums), government-controlled media, minimal social safety nets, and so on and so on. I don’t think think it’s reasonable to say that everyone has moved to the right. There’s been lots of movement to the left by the country as a whole. It’s just that there’s a whole lot of “bread and circus” drama in the process. People on both sides run around screaming that the sky is falling in. Yet the system keeps working and the country stays pretty solid overall. Yeah, the Left pushes for more social progress, while the Right fears that the public is just being caught up by fads and acts as a brake on social progress. But that’s just the “marketplace of ideas” in action. It’s messy, but in the end the system works. It involves compromise, which tends to leave everyone dissatisfied to some extent. But that’s how the system works. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/62 "2015-06-19T13:51:27Z")
> [@Chauve](#): > > I just realized that my latest post needed more of an introduction. That is, in my last post I was expanding on what I had said in an earlier post. In the earlier post I said: > > IOW, taking everything together, I’m saying that partisans on either side would have you believe that things like abortion rights or gun ownership rights are under constant threat of being taken away from us: They say, “All it takes is one bad SCOTUS nomination.” > > But history shows that both abortion rights and gun ownership rights are popular in the US, and there hasn’t been any serious attack on either right by _any_ of the legislative branches, even when the government was closely held by one party or the other. As such, the system works: The people largely get what the want. The only hard part is figuring out what the people want sometimes. > > And SCOTUS is no more of a threat to good governance than any of the other branches. > > Okay, now I’m done. 🙂 The problem with the Supreme Court is not that it is a threat to good governance it is that it is a threat to self governance. If abortion was as popular as you say then overturning Roe vs Wade would be no big deal at all. Abortion was legal in some states before Roe vs Wade and any state that wanted abortion to be legal after it is overturned could do so with no constitutional objection from the court. Yet the Supreme Court has denied the american people a chance to decide for themselves. Consider the difference between the traditional marriage movements and the movement to legalize weed. Both have used referendums to try to achieve their ends. The traditional marriage movement has gotten 32 referendums on state ballots and has won 94% of them with an average margin of 33%. The Legalize weed movement has gotten referendums on the ballot in 14 states, has succeeded on half of the referendums and has never gotten a margin as high as the average marriage referendum. Yet because of the Supreme Court the traditional marriage movement has been a failure while the much less popular weed legalization movement is on the ascendancy. That is why Supreme Court matters so much, the one side wants the Supreme Court to enforce the constitution on the few issues contained in the constitution and the other side wants to use it to veto whenever democracy gets the result wrong. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/63 "2015-06-19T13:58:53Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > That is why Supreme Court matters so much, the one side wants the Supreme Court to enforce the constitution on the few issues contained in the constitution and the other side wants to use it to veto whenever democracy gets the result wrong. The Court has served to protect against the tyranny of the majority. In the past, anti-SSM referenda always won big and Republicans used them to increase their voter turnout. But the rights of the gay minority should not be subject to the whims of the majority. If the Court affirms the rights of gays to marry, it is correcting against the tyranny of the majority. Ditto with abortion. The rights of women to decide what to do with their bodies should not depend on the whims and prejudices of the majority of the voters. It isn’t that democracy gets it wrong so much as there are some things that democracy should not be able to take from you. ---
**Author:** ![Chauve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5daacb/32.png) [@Chauve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chauve)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/64 "2015-06-19T14:00:27Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The problem with the Supreme Court is not that it is a threat to good governance it is that it is a threat to self governance. > If abortion was as popular as you say then overturning Roe vs Wade would be no big deal at all. Abortion was legal in some states before Roe vs Wade and any state that wanted abortion to be legal after it is overturned could do so with no constitutional objection from the court. Yet the Supreme Court has denied the american people a chance to decide for themselves. > Consider the difference between the traditional marriage movements and the movement to legalize weed. Both have used referendums to try to achieve their ends. The traditional marriage movement has gotten 32 referendums on state ballots and has won 94% of them with an average margin of 33%. The Legalize weed movement has gotten referendums on the ballot in 14 states, has succeeded on half of the referendums and has never gotten a margin as high as the average marriage referendum. Yet because of the Supreme Court the traditional marriage movement has been a failure while the much less popular weed legalization movement is on the ascendancy. > That is why Supreme Court matters so much, the one side wants the Supreme Court to enforce the constitution on the few issues contained in the constitution and the other side wants to use it to veto whenever democracy gets the result wrong. Honestly, I have no clue what you’re talking about with “the traditional marriage movements” and much of the rest of it. With Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS saw that abortions had become medically safe and were largely becoming legal at the state level anyway. It was a fait accompli. So the SCOTUS just put their seal of approval on it. And they’ve been vindicated–their decision hasn’t come up for a single real challenge by the President or Congress of either party in the half-century since then. It was a good call. The legalize-marijuana movement is still relatively new; SCOTUS probably won’t touch that one for a while. They tend to wait until an issue is pretty much a fait accompli before they step in. As for gay rights, SCOTUS has been inching along toward giving gays more and more rights over the last few decades. Now gay marriage is becoming a fait accompli at the state level. So we can probably expect SCOTUS to give its seal of approval on that as well. Again, SCOTUS issues are rarely cliffhangers. SCOTUS is not a cutting-edge institution. It largely just tries to reflect public opinion (at least when it comes to social issues). By the time SCOTUS rules on something, it’s pretty much settled in the public at large and there probably won’t be any challenge from POTUS or Congress on the issue. Just some grumbling from those who were on the losing side. That’s how it works. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/65 "2015-06-19T16:47:28Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > My logic is that a Republican politician, even one who was clearly brilliant and creative and original and ethical and hardworking, is still a Republican politician. The fact that they’ve chosen to run as a Republican and have presumably worked their way up the Republican political ranks, suggests that they do have allegiance to the Republican party, and do in many ways agree with Republican ideas and platforms. That doesn’t make any sense. Presumably you’re not going to vote for someone who will promote policies you disapprove of. It shouldn’t matter whether they’re doing so out of personal belief or party identification. But if you think they’re going to pursue poicies you agree with, that’s what you tink they’re going to do. You seem to be saying “the difference between a Republican candidate who supports Democratic policies and a Democratic candidate is that the Republican will support Republican policies.” I don’t think a president would do something as the executive with one hand, and with the other make judicial appointments that would be expected to reverse or nullify that thing. A pro-gun president is not going to (intentionally) appoint gun-burners to the Court. > [@Finagle](#): > > Tisei is exactly the kind of Republican I wouldn’t mind voting for – he’s a fiscal conservative and hand’s-off social policy (he’s openly gay) and no one really had anything negative to say about him at all. But aside from the obvious question of why he identifies as a Republican, it would have been very difficult to hand the Republicans yet another House seat after the clown show they’ve been putting on since 2010. I do agree with this. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate for the legislature whom I expect to caucus with a party that favors policies I disapprove of (which currently means caucusing with the Republican), regardless of that candidate’s beliefs, because by caucusing with that party, they will help strengthen it. But if I expect a candidate to vote the Democratic way on partisan policy questions, it follows that I expect that candidate to vote the Democratic way on partisan policy questions. > [@Oakminster](#): > > That’s exactly what your voting practices are. Blindly Partisan. You’ve repeatedly stated that you will vote Dem almost without exception. That’s blind, raw, naked, ugly, and unsophisticated partisanship. Nothing matters beyond the (D) after a candidates name. I don’t know. I’m independent in the sense that I don’t pre-commit to voting for a particular party regardless of who the candidate is. But the positions a candidate for executive-branch offices would have to take to get my vote would almost certainly be anathema in the Republican party, and the changes the Republican party would have to undergo for me to be willing to help strengthen them in any legislature are nearly unthinkable in the next few elections. It’s not blind partisanship, exactly, I just want some things to happen and other things not to happen, and vote accordingly, and the end result is the same. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/66 "2015-06-19T17:42:26Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > That doesn’t make any sense. > … > You seem to be saying “the difference between a Republican candidate who supports Democratic policies and a Democratic candidate is that the Republican will support Republican policies.” I think you’re missing the whole point, the political mindset that separates present-day politics from American politics in the 20th century. Republicans who support Democratic policies _ **do not vote for those policies** _ when proposed by a Democrat. Are you familiar with the “Hastert rule”? The Republican dog is being wagged by the Tea-Party tail. Obamacare started out as a Republican program, but had essentially zero Republican support when proposed by Obama. Moderate Republican Congresspeople who have been willing to vote their consciences have quit in disgust (for example Senator Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine), or go along with the extremists to avoid being been thrown out of office by the Tea Party (for example Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a long-time dealmaker who once boasted of his strong ties to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who “is now one of the most dependable Republican votes in the Senate”). Wake up and smell the coffee! **Hershele** , [read articles like this one](http://www.discussionist.com/1015367021). ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/67 "2015-06-21T13:47:44Z")
> [@Chauve](#): > > Let me use the abortion example one more time, then I’ll drop it. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything; I usually don’t do political arguments. The OP simply asked how a true independent would view him, so I’m relaying that info. But I don’t care to change anyone’s political opinions. It’s all the same to me. > > Anyway: > > Roe v. Wade was decided by SCOTUS in 1973. At the time, Republicans immediately started yelling that they would block it or overturn it in one fashion or another–legislatively, judicially, or whatever. But it never happened; never even came close. There have been lots of Republican presidents and Congresses since then, and I’ve never gotten the feeling that there was a realistic threat to Roe v. Wade. As far as I can see, it’s just a drum that each side beats around election time in order to rally the troops. Sure, the conservatives chip away at the edges a bit (waiting periods, restrictions on third trimester abortions, etc.) But the essence of Roe v. Wade itself has never been under serious attack. > > I’m an abortion-rights supporter myself. If there were a serious threat to Roe v. Wade, I would definitely come down on the Democrat side. But I think that’s exactly why Roe v. Wade never faces a serious challenge–it would be a disaster for the Republican Party. Republicans are supposed to be about personal freedom and all that. Strip away such an important personal right, and the next election would see a Democrat landslide. > > If you want an example from the other side: I’m a member of the NRA, and the NRA keeps beating the drum about how the government is a hair away from taking away our guns. I get emails from them daily. But it’s just more drum-beating. There’s never been a serious challenge to gun ownership at the national level. Sure, the Left chips away at the edges (Brady law, ban on assault weapons, bans at local levels). But the second amendment itself has never really been questioned. It just gets reinterpreted a bit from time to time. > > In summary: > > SCOTUS has repeatedly insisted over time that it’s not going to do any big, sudden lurches that would go contrary to precedent or go against the obvious will of the electorate. In any case, if the SCOTUS gets too far out of whack, it can be outmaneuvered by Congress, the President, and/or the states. Checks and balances. As such, a hyper-focus on SCOTUS nominations seems misguided to me. There are so many other things happening in elections. Why put so much emphasis on SCOTUS nominations? As shown by the example of Roe v Wade over the last 40 years, SCOTUS issues aren’t nearly the cliffhangers that the partisans would have you believe. > > Okay, I’ll drop it. Again, I’m just responding to the OP. Not trying to change votes or voters. I’ll address this, as you did, not to start a debate about the issues, but to illustrate the staying and immense power the Supreme Court has, and why that influences elections to those who might otherwise be tempted to cross party lines. To say Roe v. Wade is a dead letter issue is simply wrong. In 1992, the Court almost overturned it; one vote short. Every single confirmation of a new Justice has this vote in mind. Court watchers behind the scenes are counting votes. It would probably be upheld only by a 5-4 vote today. Say RBG dies in 2017 and President Jeb Bush nominates a replacement. You cannot be seriously suggesting that the nomination would be “bah, no big deal; court won’t touch Roe.” It would be an absolutely war with partisans on each side fighting behind the scenes. Your second point was that even if the Court overturns Roe, there would be a backlash if women were denied abortions. There would not. Sure, states like California, New York, and the whole of the northeast would allow abortion on demand. How fast do you think Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah would outlaw abortion? In my home state there is already a law against abortion on the books that is not being enforced because of Roe. Overturn Roe and abortion is illegal the very next second. And, the voters in these states support that. Do you really suggest that in these states there would be outrage over abortion being illegal such that there would be a backlash? I strongly disagree. So, suppose you are a Democrat who supports abortion rights, gay rights, etc. In 2016, you just happen to think Jeb Bush is better qualified than his opponent. You don’t risk the next 40 years because of the next 4. I disagree with you thoughts on guns for largely the same reason. Although the NRA does tend to exaggerate, their point stands. If not for the Supreme Court, again in a 5-4 vote, saying that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, then things like handgun bans would be permissible. And you don’t think it is a realistic possibility? Sure, your state may not do it, but what is to stop Congress under its commerce clause powers from doing it? You don’t think Barack Obama would ban handguns if he had the votes in Congress? So called assault weapons? Training for other gun owners? Licensure and “good cause” needed for other weapons? Again, not to debate these particular issues, but I disagree with your suggestion that these are dead letter issues and that the Supreme Court is largely irrelevant in them. These are important issues for many Americans, and the Supreme Court has and will remove them from electoral majorities. At the risk of further derailing the thread, it will likely do so again this MONTH in the SSM cases. TLDR version: If you are generally on one side of the spectrum, but in this particular election, the other party has a better candidate, the lasting power that the Supreme Court holds is much more important to the future of your political beliefs than the mere four years that your preferred individual candidate will be in power. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/68 "2015-06-22T14:26:16Z")
> [@Chauve](#): > > Honestly, I have no clue what you’re talking about with “the traditional marriage movements” and much of the rest of it. > > With Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS saw that abortions had become medically safe and were largely becoming legal at the state level anyway. It was a fait accompli. So the SCOTUS just put their seal of approval on it. And they’ve been vindicated–their decision hasn’t come up for a single real challenge by the President or Congress of either party in the half-century since then. It was a good call. > > The legalize-marijuana movement is still relatively new; SCOTUS probably won’t touch that one for a while. They tend to wait until an issue is pretty much a fait accompli before they step in. > > As for gay rights, SCOTUS has been inching along toward giving gays more and more rights over the last few decades. Now gay marriage is becoming a fait accompli at the state level. So we can probably expect SCOTUS to give its seal of approval on that as well. > > Again, SCOTUS issues are rarely cliffhangers. SCOTUS is not a cutting-edge institution. It largely just tries to reflect public opinion (at least when it comes to social issues). By the time SCOTUS rules on something, it’s pretty much settled in the public at large and there probably won’t be any challenge from POTUS or Congress on the issue. Just some grumbling from those who were on the losing side. > > That’s how it works. The abortion issue was not largely settled at the state level. Four states had legalized abortion, and 13 states had liberalized their abortion laws. Public opinion has always been split and more people have always said abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances than have said it should be legal in most or all circumstances. 394 abortion restrictions have been passed by states just since 2000. There is no consensus. Even if there were 9 unelected elderly lawyers are uniquely unsuited to understand public opinion. Legislatures and popular referendums are much more likely to reflect public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769/69 "2015-06-22T14:44:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I think you’re missing the whole point, the political mindset that separates present-day politics from American politics in the 20th century. > > Republicans who support Democratic policies _ **do not vote for those policies** _ when proposed by a Democrat. Are you familiar with the “Hastert rule”? The Republican dog is being wagged by the Tea-Party tail. Obamacare started out as a Republican program, but had essentially zero Republican support when proposed by Obama. Moderate Republican Congresspeople who have been willing to vote their consciences have quit in disgust (for example Senator Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine), or go along with the extremists to avoid being been thrown out of office by the Tea Party (for example Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a long-time dealmaker who once boasted of his strong ties to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who “is now one of the most dependable Republican votes in the Senate”). > > Wake up and smell the coffee! **Hershele** , [read articles like this one](http://www.discussionist.com/1015367021). [This is true for all people](https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/party_over_policy_0.pdf). If you describe the same [policy](http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/287789-relationship-of-parties-and-policies) to liberals and Democrats as a Democrat policy they are much more likely to favor it and if you describe it as a Republican policy they are much more likely to oppose it. The conservatives and Republicans feel the same way vice versa. This is a small problem for the national elections but a huge problem for local ones. Most big cities have not had a Republican mayor in decades and have at most a token presence on the city councils. This leads to corruption and stagnation since the elected officials only have to please the hyperpartisan primary voters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partisanship-and-us-presidential-elections/722769.md?page=3)