Im assuming not too many posters on this message board vote republican.
But if you live somewhere where the Republicans are pretty much guaranteed a victory, wouldn’t it make sense to vote for the Republican who at least questions Trump. At least in the primary stage.
I did read the recent Rand Paul thread and found it odd. Sure, plenty of legitimate problems with Rand Paul. But, any anti-Trump elected Republican is better than a MAGA Republican.
Obviously if you live in a blue state/ district you can safely vote blue. If you live in a contested area, vote blue.
In theory, yes, that makes sense, but in my state no republican in his right mind would publicly come out against Trump, particularly in a primary. MAGA people would call them out and that would be the end of their political careers.
Instead, vote for the person you think would make the the best whatever and if they lose, they lose. Voting for a “best of all evils” Republican isn’t going to change anything. The last moderate Republican went extinct a years ago.
I’ve been in Alabama (a deep-red state) frequently over the last decade, as my longtime client is located in Birmingham. During election season, the TV stations are full of ads for GOP candidates, and it has always seemed that, during the primaries, they compete with each other on trying to position themselves by just how strongly they will support Trump.
In most “red” districts and states, there probably just aren’t enough Republicans (and conservative-leaning) voters at this point who oppose Trump, to give an openly anti-MAGA GOP candidate a chance.
But that’s not how the American electoral system works. You aren’t given the choice between a MAGA republican and an anti-Trump Republican* you are given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat.
And even the most anti-Trump of the anti-Trump Republicans (which amounts to pretty much bugger all, in terms of standing up to trump) is still utterly complicit in the fascist take over of America. And so a vote for them is a vote for fascism.
‘*’ - except if you are talking about open primaries, in which case it’s less clear how you should vote. I would say vote for whoever is most likely to lose.
To do this, in many states, you would have to register as a Republican to vote in that party’s primary. (In many other states, independents can participate, and a few have wide-open primaries or “jungle primaries” where the top two vote-getters move on to the general).
Then, you have to wonder about just how “anti-Trump” any “anti-Trump Republican” really is at the core. Take the example of Rand Paul from the other thread - he voted to acquit in both of Trump’s impeachment trials, and has generally been a loyal foot soldier for any appointment or resolution that the Senate has considered this session (and in past sessions as well). One bit of backbone against tariffs doesn’t go far to making him “anti-Trump” IMHO - just rational.
But if the stars align and you have a solid candidate in a deep-red state who hasn’t sold themselves body and soul to MAGA, go ahead and try - but don’t think if they make it to Congress that they’ll be a loyal Resistance™ fighter. For one thing, they’ll have to sound MAGA in the primary to have a shot, and you should keep Vonnegut’s admonition in Mother Night in mind.
Well, I live in Rand Paul-land, located in the McConnellverse. If my choice were between a MAGA republican or Paul, I’d hold my nose and vote for Paul, since he’d clearly be the lesser of two evils.
But as long as a Democrat appears on the ballot, they’ll get my vote.
I am a registered Democrat but do not generally believe in straight party voting.
For president, member of congress, governor, and member of the state legislature, I have voted straight Democratic since 2016. But for other offices, I like to encourage moderate competent Republicans with my vote. Where they stand with regard to Trump is not the biggest issue.
I voted for Stacey Garrity for state treasurer, and Timothy DeFoor for auditor general, in November. Both seem to be competent Republican incumbents.
The last time I voted for a Republican congressional candidate was 2014, when I voted for Armond James against scandal-ridden Chacham Fattah. James lost and then became a Democrat the next year. Democrats need to encourage more moderate Republicans to do that.
This is what I am trying to get at. If you’re in a swing district, of course vote blue. But if there is no chance of your state/district being blue, why not vote for the lesser of two evils?
The morality of voting red is distasteful, I get that. But just as a practical political tactic, it may be something to think about.
I don’t think there is any reason not to vote in the Republican primary in swing state. In an open primary state there is no reason you can’t vote in the Republican primary then vote Democrat in the general election.
The voting strategy is a bit different in the two case though IMO. In a close election you should vote for whichever GOP primary candidate will most likely lose. In a deep red state where the GOP could nominate a warm bowl of dog turds and still win the general election, that’s different. I’d say you are right, it’s perfectly acceptable to vote for the least worse GOP candidate in the primary.