Party Line Voters

Bahet

What do you think of people who always vote a straight party line? I don't mean in just one election. I mean always.

I think the are rather lacking in intelligence. I don't care if they vote Rep or Dem. To not bother researching, listening to something besides Fox "news" or MSNBC, and just voting a straight ticket just screams stupid to me. I can be discussing something with someone I find worthy of engaging but the minute they mention that they vote straight party line my opinion of their intellectual abilities drops substantially. They may claim they research the candidates but why? If they know they are just going to pull that R or D lever anyhow why would they bother? And if they did bother to research them and found that the other side was the better choice but they pulled that R or D lever anyhow, that just makes them even stupider than an uninformed party line voter.

Regmama

I don't vote straight party line, but I am a one issue voter (or should I say, eliminator, since, if you don't share my views on life, you are eliminated from my voting possibilities). Yes, I think people need to research more, but being a one-issue voter, I have no problem with.

MassiveDelta

I have voted Party Line 1 check box at the top ,,,but I always research heavily. There are issues that eliminate for me as well. Life is one of them. I'm also a strict constitutionalist. Democrats and many Republicans are not. They eliminate themselves by being politicians instead of statesmen.

Bahet

I don't vote straight party line, but I am a one issue voter (or should I say, eliminator, since, if you don't share my views on life, you are eliminated from my voting possibilities). Yes, I think people need to research more, but being a one-issue voter, I have no problem with.

If this is something they can have an impact on that's fine. But if you are eliminating the most financially saavy and knowledgable person from your voting possibility for county treasurer because they are pro choice that's a bit silly.

Also, there are plenty of areas of wiggle room in that pro life stance. Is it only about abortion or is it about the life after they are born too? Would you prefer someone who is "pro life" when it comes to abortion but wants to eliminate WIC, Medicaid, funding for education, etc over someone who is pro choice for abortion but wants to make sure that once those kids are born they can be healthy?

Regmama

I don't vote straight party line, but I am a one issue voter (or should I say, eliminator, since, if you don't share my views on life, you are eliminated from my voting possibilities). Yes, I think people need to research more, but being a one-issue voter, I have no problem with.

If this is something they can have an impact on that's fine. But if you are eliminating the most financially saavy and knowledgable person from your voting possibility for county treasurer because they are pro choice that's a bit silly.

Also, there are plenty of areas of wiggle room in that pro life stance. Is it only about abortion or is it about the life after they are born too? Would you prefer someone who is "pro life" when it comes to abortion but wants to eliminate WIC, Medicaid, funding for education, etc over someone who is pro choice for abortion but wants to make sure that once those kids are born they can be healthy?

I would vote for the one who is against abortion, euthenasia, etc. first because without life, all those other issues don't matter. Do I fight for those other issues? Yes, but it still starts with valuing human life because if you compromise on that you can compromise on other issues that affect people's lives. I will say, however, that I would vote for a Democrat for Life vs. a pro-choice Republican any day.

SarahMorganP

I don't vote straight party line, but I honestly can't imagine ever voting for a republican. I just can't imagine ever finding someone who calls themself a republican that I would agree with on anything. I am so far left I just don't think it would happen. Now if the dem was really bad I probably just wouldn't vote, because no matter how bad the dem was, I don't believe the republican would be better.

Now if for some reason that wasn't the case and the republican WAS the better choice in my opinion then sure I would vote for them...it has never happened yet and I just don't see it happening. LOL

Azdak

For national elections, there is more to it than just the views of the individual. In Congress, the party in power now has a huge influence on what and how business is conducted. The power to name committee chairs, etc, has become crucial. At least in the House, one single representative does not have much of an impact (unless it a top leadership position).

So if the election of one person resulted in a particular political party gaining power, then you are not just supporting that person, but everyone else in that party.

So even if by some bizarre cosmic accident a sane, rational republican ran for public office, I would never vote for that person because it would be the same as voting for Bachmann, Issa, Kyl and the rest of the freakshow loonies. Given the current state of the republican base, it is doubtful I will ever have to make that choice in my lifetime, but it is one I would make without hesitation.

Regmama

Azdak, can you make an arguement without name calling or stereotyping an individual or group you do not agree with? It really makes your arguement juvenile.

Azdak

What do you think of people who always vote a straight party line? I don't mean in just one election. I mean always.

I think the are rather lacking in intelligence. I don't care if they vote Rep or Dem. To not bother researching, listening to something besides Fox "news" or MSNBC, and just voting a straight ticket just screams stupid to me. I can be discussing something with someone I find worthy of engaging but the minute they mention that they vote straight party line my opinion of their intellectual abilities drops substantially. They may claim they research the candidates but why? If they know they are just going to pull that R or D lever anyhow why would they bother? And if they did bother to research them and found that the other side was the better choice but they pulled that R or D lever anyhow, that just makes them even stupider than an uninformed party line voter.

See my other comment. In some mythical "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" world, you might be correct, but IMO our country has not worked that way in a generation or more.

On a local level, things might be different--I know the mayor of our village claims to be an independent. I suspect he is more of a republican, but, quite frankly, I could care less. National political issues have little bearing on the practical problems facing a small-town mayor.

But nationally, it is a different story.

summertime_girl

I don't vote straight party line, but I am a one issue voter (or should I say, eliminator, since, if you don't share my views on life, you are eliminated from my voting possibilities). Yes, I think people need to research more, but being a one-issue voter, I have no problem with.

I find that such an absurd position. Presumably you would never have an abortion. So an issue that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on you, decides your vote. This line of thinking means that you would, by default, potentially vote for the most unqualified, amoral, ignorant candidate, simply because you have one common belief.

I certainly have issues near and dear to my heart. But I would never choose a candidate based on a single criteria. And I'll never understand a voter who would.

summertime_girl

I don't vote straight party line, but I honestly can't imagine ever voting for a republican. I just can't imagine ever finding someone who calls themself a republican that I would agree with on anything. I am so far left I just don't think it would happen. Now if the dem was really bad I probably just wouldn't vote, because no matter how bad the dem was, I don't believe the republican would be better.

Now if for some reason that wasn't the case and the republican WAS the better choice in my opinion then sure I would vote for them...it has never happened yet and I just don't see it happening. LOL

I agree with this. I did vote Republican twice. Once was for Mitt Romney for Governor of MA (boy, were we duped about the kind of man he is!), and once in a local election when the Democrat candidate couldn't articulate his way out of paper bag. I find ignorant politicians scarier than ones that don't share all my views.

Azdak

Azdak, can you make an arguement without name calling or stereotyping an individual or group you do not agree with? It really makes your arguement juvenile.

Regmama

I don't vote straight party line, but I am a one issue voter (or should I say, eliminator, since, if you don't share my views on life, you are eliminated from my voting possibilities). Yes, I think people need to research more, but being a one-issue voter, I have no problem with.

I find that such an absurd position. Presumably you would never have an abortion. So an issue that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on you, decides your vote. This line of thinking means that you would, by default, potentially vote for the most unqualified, amoral, ignorant candidate, simply because you have one common belief.

I certainly have issues near and dear to my heart. But I would never choose a candidate based on a single criteria. And I'll never understand a voter who would.

My issue isn't just abortion, but also euthenasia, cloning, embryonic stem-cell research - all life issues. There are plenty of single issue voters on the left, you know, the ones who voted for Obama simply because he promised to pull troops out of Iraq completely. I don't look negatively on anti-war voters, I expect the same curtosy for myself on voting based on life issues. And again, I use the life issue to eliminate. from that point if there is more than one candidate for a position after the elimination I vote for the one who has a better social justice platform

summertime_girl

I never said there weren't single issue voters who voted for Obama, or any other Dem candidate. I'm well aware that it isn't particular to a single party. I still find it absurd. There are so many important criteria on which to base a vote. A single common position is not the way to do it.

Regmama

I never said there weren't single issue voters who voted for Obama, or any other Dem candidate. I'm well aware that it isn't particular to a single party. I still find it absurd. There are so many important criteria on which to base a vote. A single common position is not the way to do it.

Just to touch base on what you said previously, what you may think is ignorant I may not. Many people are relativists when it comes to morals and such, I am not, I believe there are ultimate Truths, actually I know there are, especially when it comes to morals. Those do all get factored into play, as does mercy because I too have failed in my life as has every other human who has walked the planet.

Azdak

I never said there weren't single issue voters who voted for Obama, or any other Dem candidate. I'm well aware that it isn't particular to a single party. I still find it absurd. There are so many important criteria on which to base a vote. A single common position is not the way to do it.

Just to touch base on what you said previously, what you may think is ignorant I may not. Many people are relativists when it comes to morals and such, I am not, I believe there are ultimate Truths, actually I know there are, especially when it comes to morals. Those do all get factored into play, as does mercy because I too have failed in my life as has every other human who has walked the planet.

I understand your viewpoint. I understand the importance to you of what is being called your "single issue" and I understand that, because of it's importance to you, there is little or no room for compromise. And, in respectful disagreement with summertime, I would not refer to your position as "absurd".

In a larger sense, I am curious as to where that leaves us as a nation. It does go back to the original dilemma, which is the conflict when you have, on the one hand, someone who meets your primary criteria, but in all other ways is grossly unqualified for the position? I realize this gets into some very subjective territory -- you may legitimately feel that all your approved candidates ARE qualified and this will remain a hypothetical.

But is there any scenario that you would consider a candidate so unqualified, that even though he or she agreed with you on your "elminator" position, you could not bring yourself to vote for him or her? It's a legitimate, open-ended question. I am not looking to "trap" you or even debate. I am sincerely curious to learn your reasoning.

Regmama

I never said there weren't single issue voters who voted for Obama, or any other Dem candidate. I'm well aware that it isn't particular to a single party. I still find it absurd. There are so many important criteria on which to base a vote. A single common position is not the way to do it.

Just to touch base on what you said previously, what you may think is ignorant I may not. Many people are relativists when it comes to morals and such, I am not, I believe there are ultimate Truths, actually I know there are, especially when it comes to morals. Those do all get factored into play, as does mercy because I too have failed in my life as has every other human who has walked the planet.

I understand your viewpoint. I understand the importance to you of what is being called your "single issue" and I understand that, because of it's importance to you, there is little or no room for compromise. And, in respectful disagreement with summertime, I would not refer to your position as "absurd".

In a larger sense, I am curious as to where that leaves us as a nation. It does go back to the original dilemma, which is the conflict when you have, on the one hand, someone who meets your primary criteria, but in all other ways is grossly unqualified for the position? I realize this gets into some very subjective territory -- you may legitimately feel that all your approved candidates ARE qualified and this will remain a hypothetical.

But is there any scenario that you would consider a candidate so unqualified, that even though he or she agreed with you on your "elminator" position, you could not bring yourself to vote for him or her? It's a legitimate, open-ended question. I am not looking to "trap" you or even debate. I am sincerely curious to learn your reasoning.

I do not always vote party line even if my vote will be considered a "throw away". I have voted Libertarian, Constitution, Republican, Independent, and Democrat. I have also not voted for some local officials because I did not research their platforms. For example, Last election Mark Kirk did NOT get my vote though most of the rest of my sheet was ful of Rs (but not all). I voted for Mike Labno (the Libertarian candidate). In regards to your hypothetical, if the candiate was completely incompetent in every aspect and there weren't other choices, I wouldn't vote for that position.

SarahMorganP

I don't vote straight party line, but I am a one issue voter (or should I say, eliminator, since, if you don't share my views on life, you are eliminated from my voting possibilities). Yes, I think people need to research more, but being a one-issue voter, I have no problem with.

I find that such an absurd position. Presumably you would never have an abortion. So an issue that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on you, decides your vote. This line of thinking means that you would, by default, potentially vote for the most unqualified, amoral, ignorant candidate, simply because you have one common belief.

I certainly have issues near and dear to my heart. But I would never choose a candidate based on a single criteria. And I'll never understand a voter who would.

My issue isn't just abortion, but also euthenasia, cloning, embryonic stem-cell research - all life issues. There are plenty of single issue voters on the left, you know, the ones who voted for Obama simply because he promised to pull troops out of Iraq completely. I don't look negatively on anti-war voters, I expect the same curtosy for myself on voting based on life issues. And again, I use the life issue to eliminate. from that point if there is more than one candidate for a position after the elimination I vote for the one who has a better social justice platform

All life issues? I don't think so. I think only *some* life issues. Otherwise you couldn't vote republican, they are (most of the time) in favor of the death penalty aren't they?

Sorry, I just have a problem with people saying they are pro-life when they really aren't. If you are ok with people being put to death (and please don't give me the "they are guilty and deserve it" line when you and I both know that innocent people have been put to death and will continue to be) you are not pro-life in all life issues.

Regmama

All life issues? I don't think so. I think only *some* life issues. Otherwise you couldn't vote republican, they are (most of the time) in favor of the death penalty aren't they?

Sorry, I just have a problem with people saying they are pro-life when they really aren't. If you are ok with people being put to death (and please don't give me the "they are guilty and deserve it" line when you and I both know that innocent people have been put to death and will continue to be) you are not pro-life in all life issues.

To address your first statement there are probably the same percentage of Democrat politcians who support the death penalty as Republicans, just they aren't as vocal. Heck, even Obama ordered the killing of Bin Laden. I've been to Democrat inaugerations, know plenty of politicians who are Democrats, trust me, most support the death penalty in at least rare occassions because of their attorney friends who make money off the cases and appeals.

As for me personally, I am completely against the death penalty.

Regmama

And at times you have to vote for the person who wil do the least harm. In the US alone nearly 4000 Americans are killed per day in the womb (and those are just the reported ones). How many are executed (yes, one is one too many)?

mikajoanow

I don't usually vote for Republicans anymore. I don't rule them out though. I did vote third party the last time David Wu came up for re-election.

fbmandy55

I think people who vote straight party line are the root of the issues with out country. Republicans and Democrats are so similar in what they want. Greed, money, control, less freedom... It's kept us in this cycle of presidents past belonging to different parties but being essentially the same.

I will never vote liberal, mostly republican or libertarian. Depending on the preson who is running and whether or not I agree with their stance. Only because I have yet to find a liberal I agree with on nearly anything.

MassiveDelta

Im struggling this election. For the first time ever I dont have a candidate that I'm willing to vote for. I voted for McCain last time but shouldn't have... I just have finally come to terms with not stepping into line and voting for the party choice....I dont know who to vote for.

Bahet

I didn't vote for Obama last time but I will this time simply because the alternative will completely destroy the economy for everyone who isn't already wealthy. Romney is so far out of touch with reality for the vast majority of Americans that it's downright frightening. I guess he can't see us from way up there in his ivory tower.

What really gets me about Romney is the way some of the situations are being handled. Clinton had an affair and every Republican demanded to know the full details. They were appalled and wanted to impeach him for lying about it. But Romney has an undisclosed Swiss bank account and no one is saying anything?? That's tax evasion!! The only reason I can guess as to why he's not being brought up on charges is that it's because he has millions, not thousands or hundreds, in hidden money.

MassiveDelta

I didn't vote for Obama last time but I will this time simply because the alternative will completely destroy the economy for everyone who isn't already wealthy. Romney is so far out of touch with reality for the vast majority of Americans that it's downright frightening. I guess he can't see us from way up there in his ivory tower.

What really gets me about Romney is the way some of the situations are being handled. Clinton had an affair and every Republican demanded to know the full details. They were appalled and wanted to impeach him for lying about it. But Romney has an undisclosed Swiss bank account and no one is saying anything?? That's tax evasion!! The only reason I can guess as to why he's not being brought up on charges is that it's because he has millions, not thousands or hundreds, in hidden money.

Wow interesting take. It makes no sense. On one hand you have a guy that doesn't understand the middle class and has hidden money essentially stealing money from the government. But you are willing to vote for a guy who has only made the economy worse and instead of stealing from the government he steals from the populace to do the bidding of the government. If I had to choose Id rather have a guy that steals from the government not the people.

summertime_girl

The economy is worse?

The Dow was hovering at 8000 when Obama took office. This morning it's over 13,000.

Unemployment is roughly the same overall, but interesting to note that it's much lower in blue states. (And of course, the converse is true: government assistance is higher in red states).

Azdak

Im struggling this election. For the first time ever I dont have a candidate that I'm willing to vote for. I voted for McCain last time but shouldn't have... I just have finally come to terms with not stepping into line and voting for the party choice....I dont know who to vote for.

I disagree, but I understand the sentiment. Our two-party system makes it extremely difficult for a third (or more) party to gain viability. In the past, that has not been as monolithic (or "duo"lithic) as it might seem. The national parties were diverse enough to encompass a wide range of political leanings--one of the reasons why third-parties have never been that successful is that they usually developed around one or a limited set of issues--and if those issues gained popular traction, they were co-opted into one of the major parties. Even in essentially "one-party" entities--such as Democratic Cook County in Illinois, or its Republican counterparts in the suburban collar counties of Chicago--there was some diversity that manifested itself in the party primary.

While the republican party may have been more conservative, it had its own "liberal" wing--Rockefeller, Chafee, et al. The Democrats have always had a core of conservatives One of the false narratives of recent political history was that the Democrats had a "filibuster proof" supermajority in the Senate after the 2008 election. Not only was that numerically true for only a few months (from the seating of Al Franken to the election of Scott Brown), it was never a true supermajority in that there were a number of "conservadems" --Nelson, Lincoln, Carpo, Baucus, etc--who often sided with republicans and supported many of the republican filibusters.

But I digress--the so-called "liberal" wing of the republican party has been purged over the past 10-15 years. The increased extremism of the republicans has pushed the Democratic party somewhat farther to the left.

I can understand that there is a core of voters who might have conservative economic views but find themselves repulsed by the extreme social attitudes of the modern republican party. And is an older faction of the Democratic party --white, blue-collar workers in certain parts of the country--who are more socially conservative and fee more uncomfortable over such issues as abortion and gay marriage. But those "hybrid" voters are finding it increasingly difficult to find a place in either major party.

Another important development that began in 1994 and escalated in 2001 in the institution of rigid party discipline within the republican party. Buttressed by threats from party leadership, and threats of a primary defeat by an extremist base, republicans have voted more as a solid bloc that at any other time in the past. That means that more and more, the individual member no longer matters. Senators like Mark Kirk of Illinois and Scott Brown in Massachusetts tried to portray themselves as "moderates" to appeal to a larger electorate, but, once in office, were hardly any more independent that than lowliest back-bencher in the British Parliament. IMO, that more than anything else has promoted an increase in bloc voting.

The fact is that, even if a responsible, socially aware republican were running in my district, I would be hard-pressed to vote for that candidate because doing so is also a vote for Michelle Bachmann and every other insane wacko republican congressperson. There is no way I could do that to America. And, again, because of the current state of American politics, members of congress no longer represent the voters in their districts. They represent their campaign funders. Everyday citizens, even those in their own party, are given only grudging attention, and citizens from another party are excluded altogether. The Congresswoman in my district -- Judy Biggert in IL-13-- makes almost no public appearances to audiences that are not pre-screened. She appears almost exclusively at closed events on private property.

So, I'm not sure where we are going. It may take someone with charisma and the willingness to personally bankroll a campaign to start a viable third-party movement. It frustrates me that it has become seemingly impossible to have a coherent national debate on any topic. The media and the discussions themselves are totally controlled by spinmeisters and consultants who are able to concoct an almost impenetrable web of side issues, scare tactics, distortions, etc to divert our attention from the real issues. With all the months of heated exchanges, and drama, and hundreds of millions of dollars, we still have yet to have a substantive debate on health care, for example. That entire process was completely buried under the debris of superficialites, diversions, and distortions ("Dealh Panels"!! "Socialism"!!!!).

I used to say it was ultimately up the individual voter--that we held the ultimate power. But with the Citizens United decision, I"m not so sure anymore. I do know that we are going into a $1 billion presidential campaign in which the number of substantive discussions based on facts will be close to zero.

Azdak

I didn't vote for Obama last time but I will this time simply because the alternative will completely destroy the economy for everyone who isn't already wealthy. Romney is so far out of touch with reality for the vast majority of Americans that it's downright frightening. I guess he can't see us from way up there in his ivory tower.

What really gets me about Romney is the way some of the situations are being handled. Clinton had an affair and every Republican demanded to know the full details. They were appalled and wanted to impeach him for lying about it. But Romney has an undisclosed Swiss bank account and no one is saying anything?? That's tax evasion!! The only reason I can guess as to why he's not being brought up on charges is that it's because he has millions, not thousands or hundreds, in hidden money.

Wow interesting take. It makes no sense. On one hand you have a guy that doesn't understand the middle class and has hidden money essentially stealing money from the government. But you are willing to vote for a guy who has only made the economy worse and instead of stealing from the government he steals from the populace to do the bidding of the government. If I had to choose Id rather have a guy that steals from the government not the people.

We should probably have a different thread on economics so the topic can have it's own discussion.

Personally, I think that reading "Showdown" by David Corn, this article by Ezra Klein (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/could-this-time-have-been-different/2011/08/25/gIQAiJo0VL_blog.html), this interview with Joseph Stiglitz (http://theeuropean-magazine.com/633-stiglitz-joseph/634-austerity-and-a-new-recession) and anything by Paul Krugman should be required as prerequisites before starting such a discussion.

MassiveDelta

Im struggling this election. For the first time ever I dont have a candidate that I'm willing to vote for. I voted for McCain last time but shouldn't have... I just have finally come to terms with not stepping into line and voting for the party choice....I dont know who to vote for.

I disagree, but I understand the sentiment. Our two-party system makes it extremely difficult for a third (or more) party to gain viability. In the past, that has not been as monolithic (or "duo"lithic) as it might seem. The national parties were diverse enough to encompass a wide range of political leanings--one of the reasons why third-parties have never been that successful is that they usually developed around one or a limited set of issues--and if those issues gained popular traction, they were co-opted into one of the major parties. Even in essentially "one-party" entities--such as Democratic Cook County in Illinois, or its Republican counterparts in the suburban collar counties of Chicago--there was some diversity that manifested itself in the party primary.

While the republican party may have been more conservative, it had its own "liberal" wing--Rockefeller, Chafee, et al. The Democrats have always had a core of conservatives One of the false narratives of recent political history was that the Democrats had a "filibuster proof" supermajority in the Senate after the 2008 election. Not only was that numerically true for only a few months (from the seating of Al Franken to the election of Scott Brown), it was never a true supermajority in that there were a number of "conservadems" --Nelson, Lincoln, Carpo, Baucus, etc--who often sided with republicans and supported many of the republican filibusters.

But I digress--the so-called "liberal" wing of the republican party has been purged over the past 10-15 years. The increased extremism of the republicans has pushed the Democratic party somewhat farther to the left.

I can understand that there is a core of voters who might have conservative economic views but find themselves repulsed by the extreme social attitudes of the modern republican party. And is an older faction of the Democratic party --white, blue-collar workers in certain parts of the country--who are more socially conservative and fee more uncomfortable over such issues as abortion and gay marriage. But those "hybrid" voters are finding it increasingly difficult to find a place in either major party.

Another important development that began in 1994 and escalated in 2001 in the institution of rigid party discipline within the republican party. Buttressed by threats from party leadership, and threats of a primary defeat by an extremist base, republicans have voted more as a solid bloc that at any other time in the past. That means that more and more, the individual member no longer matters. Senators like Mark Kirk of Illinois and Scott Brown in Massachusetts tried to portray themselves as "moderates" to appeal to a larger electorate, but, once in office, were hardly any more independent that than lowliest back-bencher in the British Parliament. IMO, that more than anything else has promoted an increase in bloc voting.

The fact is that, even if a responsible, socially aware republican were running in my district, I would be hard-pressed to vote for that candidate because doing so is also a vote for Michelle Bachmann and every other insane wacko republican congressperson. There is no way I could do that to America. And, again, because of the current state of American politics, members of congress no longer represent the voters in their districts. They represent their campaign funders. Everyday citizens, even those in their own party, are given only grudging attention, and citizens from another party are excluded altogether. The Congresswoman in my district -- Judy Biggert in IL-13-- makes almost no public appearances to audiences that are not pre-screened. She appears almost exclusively at closed events on private property.

So, I'm not sure where we are going. It may take someone with charisma and the willingness to personally bankroll a campaign to start a viable third-party movement. It frustrates me that it has become seemingly impossible to have a coherent national debate on any topic. The media and the discussions themselves are totally controlled by spinmeisters and consultants who are able to concoct an almost impenetrable web of side issues, scare tactics, distortions, etc to divert our attention from the real issues. With all the months of heated exchanges, and drama, and hundreds of millions of dollars, we still have yet to have a substantive debate on health care, for example. That entire process was completely buried under the debris of superficialites, diversions, and distortions ("Dealh Panels"!! "Socialism"!!!!).

I used to say it was ultimately up the individual voter--that we held the ultimate power. But with the Citizens United decision, I"m not so sure anymore. I do know that we are going into a $1 billion presidential campaign in which the number of substantive discussions based on facts will be close to zero.

I know that were are on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum politically and yet I agree with a large portion of everything you have spelled out here. Im convinced that one of the 2 parties will be destroyed within the next election cycle and before mid term elections we will see a 3rd party rise into majority status. If it maintains the will of the people then it will destroy both parties.

fbmandy55

I know that were are on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum politically and yet I agree with a large portion of everything you have spelled out here. Im convinced that one of the 2 parties will be destroyed within the next election cycle and before mid term elections we will see a 3rd party rise into majority status. If it maintains the will of the people then it will destroy both parties.

I have to disagree. There are too many people who only vote their party and that's not going to change without some major event happening in our country.

Azdak

I know that were are on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum politically and yet I agree with a large portion of everything you have spelled out here. Im convinced that one of the 2 parties will be destroyed within the next election cycle and before mid term elections we will see a 3rd party rise into majority status. If it maintains the will of the people then it will destroy both parties.

To be honest, I thought that was about ready to occur after the 2008 election. It seemed as if the republican party had effectively abandoned entire geographic regions and demographic groups and had become basically a regional party consisting of a narrow and aging population base. And then we saw what happened in 2010. So, I am out of the "party demise prognostication" business.

I think there are forces at work that could result in some type of realignment, but, right now, with the huge amounts of money that can be brought to bear by unnamed, unknown groups, again, I think it will be very difficult for a grass roots movement to emerge. I look at Santorum's campaign--in many ways, he seemed to have "popular mandate" of much of the electorate, but he was overwhelmed by Romney's financial advantage.

If we are going to have any type of populist movement that forces a new direction, Americans are going to have to learn how NOT to be influenced by waves of negative ads. So far, that's not happening.