Suppose a Democratic senator votes for Barrett’s confirmation (or a Republican senator votes against.) Does that make that senator a DINO or RINO, respectively, in your eyes?
How far can a D stray right, or an R stray left, in your opinion, before he/she has officially become a DINO/RINO?
For the Democrats: Pro-life? Anti-gun-control?
For the Republicans: Pro-choice? Anti-Trump?
I have two criteria.
This is the major one. Supporting members of the other party, as opposed to policy positions of the other party. A Democrat endorsing a Republican, voting to elect a Republican for Speaker of the House or Senate majority leader, etc., would be a DINO. Same for a Republican doing the opposite. When it comes to nominees by the president, it depends on just how far away from the mainstream that nominee is. In retrospect, a Democratic senator who voted for Gorsuch would not be a DINO. One who voted for Kavanaugh would be.
Supporting the most extreme positions of the other party. A Democrat who supports white supremacists is a DINO. A Republican that supports far left positions would also be a RINO. In particular, I wouldn’t apply this criteria to issues that are not at the extremes. A Republican wanting to raise taxes like GHWB did isn’t a RINO. A Democrat who is pro-life personally but doesn’t support the elimination of Roe vs. Wade isn’t a DINO. At least not because of those positions.
I agree with FTB – Joe Lieberman, for example, supported McCain against Obama. (Well, what about all those Republicans supporting Trump – I would say that Obama is nowhere near as monstrous as Trump, but that’s an opinion).
On the two Democratic positions mentioned by the OP, there are plenty of gun-owning Democrats, and just about everyone is for some sort of gun control, so when you say anti-gun-control, do you mean allowing rocket launchers and tanks? I think the pro-gun Democrats are for “reasonable” controls (with differences of opinion on “reasonable”). Also, there are some pro-life Democrats. I don’t consider them to be DINOs.
I don’t think DINO is thrown around as much as RINO because Democrats are all over the place anyway.
I’ll let Republicans talk about RINOs and I eagerly await the OP’s opinions and contributions.
I’m with Rittersport on the DINO issue - in that the Democrats allow a much wider range of approval on various issues that are held near and dear the ‘traditional’ Democratic Party supporters - not to mention that in purple states, the successful ones are more centrist still, especially on issues like gun control. They tend to be in the “let’s enforce the laws we have, but seriously” while the Republican candidates are for rolling back existing restrictions.
The closest I’d find is probably Joe Manchin III, who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, and even he didn’t endore BK until it was pretty certain that the votes were in. He also represents a deep red state, and was without a doubt working the re-election angle. He was booed on that issue, but doesn’t seem to be shunned in the same way certain centrist Republicans have been in the Trump era.
Which brings me to the second point - I’d say all current elected Republicans (with maybe a few possible borderline cases) are technically RINOs now - they’re Trumpers first if only because of the terror of his base support. It’s not news that they have freely admitted that many Republican values (especially fiscal conservatism) are only a tool to fight Democrats with, that they are happy to abandon the moment they feel they have control.
Although an argument could be made that the current face of the Republican party has always been the true face, and that all Republican values for the last 30+ years have been the candy shell to get a bitter, deadly pill of protectionism, plutocracy and privilege down the throats of moderate Americans. Time will probably tell one way or the other.
I would disagree on protectionism. I think that’s a genuine Trump fuckup, nothing to do with the GOP of 2016 and earlier. Otherwise, I agree.