Gyroscopic Investing

And talk radio for that matter

**disclaimer** This is question is directed at people tend to vote conservative or at least independents.  Obviously if you're a partisan Democrat, you probably have been sick of talk radio and the Tea Party for some time now...

With that said, I do admire much of what they stand for, but I'm getting really sick of these "Tea Party" candidates losing elections that are very winnable.  Then all of the conservative talk radio guys who push these ultra-conservative candidates make excuses such as...

"The D outspend the R by 10-1"
"The NRC didn't support the Tea Party candidate"
"The voters fell for candidate D's lies and smear campaign"

The talk radio guys are probably most annoying because they believe that EVERYONE should think exactly like they do and support the most conservative candidates, but that's not how the world works.  There is a political spectrum that usually varies with geography.

Chris Christi takes a lot of heat from these same talk radio guys because he's not "pure" enough.  I tend to think he is one of the most charming and likeable candidates for the R's and is one of the few that has a pretty good shot at defeating Hillary. 

I tend to like much of the politics of Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum, but let's face it.  These guys tend to alienate a LARGE segment of the public.  You have to be pretty darn conservative for them not to rub you the wrong way.

It would be the equivalent of demanding that the only Democratic candidates you nominate are similar to Diane Finestein or Harry Reid politically.  Just as those candidates are appealing to their current constituents, they would not fair well nationally.

I'm curious to hear other R voter's opinions. 

End of Rant!

Simonjester wrote: i don't listen to talk radio (i got sick of that long ago), or consider myself a republican, but i am FAR more fed up with the corrupted progressive GOP than i am with the tea party. The tea party types have definitely made a few mistakes with backing goofball candidates, and there is something to be said for taking the best deal you can get in blue states where far right candidates can't win, but i would support a tea party guy (assuming they are not a goofball or democrat spoiler/plant) in any red state election against any of the "two party = one party" GOP establishment guys, that have no ideology beyond "power, money, war, and more big government".

Simonjester wrote: i am FAR more fed up with the corrupted progressive GOP than i am with the tea party.

+10

Personally I'm most fed up with losing more freedom regardless on who gets elected.

Pointedstick wrote: Personally I'm most fed up with losing more freedom regardless on who gets elected.

May I ask who you typically vote for R? D? L? 

Elections are contests between two/three people with different ideas on liberties, but they are often relative to the person voting.  I'm curious which party most often represents your ideas.  Also, if it's a choice between "the least bad" do you still vote, or do you sit out the election? 

Are you willing to vote for a low-polling candidate, or do you consider that a wasted vote?  For instance, in the race that took place last night in Virginia, which candidate would you have voted for?

Pointedstick wrote: Personally I'm most fed up with losing more freedom regardless on who gets elected.

This.  In the past I've voted GOP because they've been taking freedom from people other than me whereas I'm public enemy number one for the Dems (educated, white, male).  I also have some social issue disagreement with the Dems.  However, the GOP has in recent years been encroaching severely into my privacy with their spying and my pocketbook with their wars (which the Dems often support, until they can use it as a political club).  Now I'll not cast a vote for anyone that I think accurately reflects GOP policy ever again.  At best I'll support someone who is a Libertarian wearing the stain of the GOP in order to get elected, like Ron Paul.  Rand Paul I also like, but he has some more traditional GOP views so it's more of a grey area.

No, from now on I just vote my conscience and throw it away on Libertarian candidates.  That way I'm not just staying how so I can still complain about the assholes who get elected but I'm not contributing to the problem by voting for the dregs of humanity.

To your point Clacy, the problem the Tea Partiers are facing right now is that they've become the party of "All Things Conservative."  They have to track right on every single issue rather than picking their battles.  For example, if they ran on taxes and our economic/fiscal health, they'd have a shot.  Instead they have to make every single election a referendum on abortion (the definition of rape, as if that's a good idea to discuss), gay marriage, immigration, and any other issue they can think of to try and alienate as much of the electorate as possible rather than focusing in on the hot button issues where people are concerned and running a tight campaign.  In short, all of these people are idiots in addition to being the usual loathsome stock that normally floats to the top of the political cesspool.

clacy wrote: May I ask who you typically vote for R? D? L? 

Elections are contests between two/three people with different ideas on liberties, but they are often relative to the person voting.  I'm curious which party most often represents your ideas.  Also, if it's a choice between "the least bad" do you still vote, or do you sit out the election? 

Are you willing to vote for a low-polling candidate, or do you consider that a wasted vote?  For instance, in the race that took place last night in Virginia, which candidate would you have voted for?

I am a ruthless pragmatist. I vote in every election, and I usually vote R, but occasionally vote D when I feel it makes more sense. I will occasionally vote L in cases where I know my preferred candidate will lose by a 30-point margin or more i.e. when my voting in the election is basically pointless because the guy I don't like is assured of victory even if he began fellating a goat during a live appearance on CNN.

In Virginia, I would have voted for Cuccinelli, simply because Sarvis had no chance as a member of a third party. Our system makes third parties a joke; there's no point in voting for them if there's one of the major party candidate you would prefer over the other, even by a slim margin. No third party will ever succeed unless it takes the place of one of the two major parties, like the Republican party did when it displaced the Whigs.

As for why I usually vote R: The Rs mostly want to take things away from people who are not me, and the things they want to take away from me (my internet privacy, my never-exercised ability to consume recreational drugs, my ability to borrow an unlimited amount of money to learn victimhood theory and hyphenated-studies in college) are usually lesser compared to the things the Democrats want to take away from me (my money, my guns, my business, my son's right to dignity and self-expression in the public school system).

Nope!

The first presidential candidate I was ever enthusiastic about was RFK because of his anti-Vietnam war stance, but the voting age was still 21 back then and besides they blew his brains out and that was that.

My first presidential vote was therefore for Jimmy Carter and that would be the last democrat I ever voted for. Although registered as an independent, I voted straight Republican until about 10 years ago when I quit voting altogether.

As for the Tea Party, it was actually a registered political party in Florida at one time. I knew nothing about it but I registered just because I liked the rebellious nature of the name and thought it would look good on the voter card. Unfortunately, it only said BTP and it disbanded shortly any way.

Based on what I've heard, they don't believe in an anti-interventionist foreign policy so I don't support them. It's like tea party for me, but not for thee.

Pointedstick wrote:

clacy wrote: May I ask who you typically vote for R? D? L? 

Elections are contests between two/three people with different ideas on liberties, but they are often relative to the person voting.  I'm curious which party most often represents your ideas.  Also, if it's a choice between "the least bad" do you still vote, or do you sit out the election? 

Are you willing to vote for a low-polling candidate, or do you consider that a wasted vote?  For instance, in the race that took place last night in Virginia, which candidate would you have voted for?

I am a ruthless pragmatist. I vote in every election, and I usually vote R, but occasionally vote D when I feel it makes more sense. I will occasionally vote L in cases where I know my preferred candidate will lose by a 30-point margin or more i.e. when my voting in the election is basically pointless because the guy I don't like is assured of victory even if he began fellating a goat during a live appearance on CNN.

In Virginia, I would have voted for Cuccinelli, simply because Sarvis had no chance as a member of a third party. Our system makes third parties a joke; there's no point in voting for them if there's one of the major party candidate you would prefer over the other, even by a slim margin. No third party will ever succeed unless it takes the place of one of the two major parties, like the Republican party did when it displaced the Whigs.

As for why I usually vote R: The Rs mostly want to take things away from people who are not me, and the things they want to take away from me (my internet privacy, my never-exercised ability to consume recreational drugs, my ability to borrow an unlimited amount of money to learn victimhood theory and hyphenated-studies in college) are usually lesser compared to the things the Democrats want to take away from me (my money, my guns, my business, my son's right to dignity and self-expression in the public school system).

Thanks.  You and I think along many of the same lines politically. 

Pointedstick wrote:...even if he began fellating a goat during a live appearance on CNN.

In Virginia, I would have voted for Cuccinelli, simply because Sarvis had no chance as a member of a third party....

OK, couldn't resist. Isn't Cuccinelli is against any form of oral ...ehh... pleasure?

More to the point... I do not want to vote for any D or R again. If we keep voting for them, how can we ever improve the system?

jan van mourik wrote: More to the point... I do not want to vote for any D or R again. If we keep voting for them, how can we ever improve the system?

Because a third party candidate is going to win an election and reform the system?

Before the recent election, Ron Paul said one would have to be crazy to vote for the libertarian candidate in Virginia.

jan van mourik wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:...even if he began fellating a goat during a live appearance on CNN.

In Virginia, I would have voted for Cuccinelli, simply because Sarvis had no chance as a member of a third party....

OK, couldn't resist. Isn't Cuccinelli is against any form of oral ...ehh... pleasure?

No. Besides, I don't care what he's for or against personally. I care about what he throws his political weight behind making illegal. I estimated his chance of working to try to ban oral sex at roughly 0%, and the chance of any such proposition actually passing the legislature should the governor be so foolish as to push it as also roughly 0%. Thus, irrelevant to my decision.

jan van mourik wrote: More to the point... I do not want to vote for any D or R again. If we keep voting for them, how can we ever improve the system?

To improve a system, you must understand it. In the American system of government, two parties dominate, and a third party has historically only gained power when it has replaced one of the two major parties that has collapsed. If you want a third party to gain prominence, it would be more effective to try to cause the collapse of the Republicans than to work to raise up the Libertarians (or whoever).

Simonjester wrote:

Benko wrote:

jan van mourik wrote: More to the point... I do not want to vote for any D or R again. If we keep voting for them, how can we ever improve the system?

Because a third party candidate is going to win an election and reform the system?

Before the recent election, Ron Paul said one would have to be crazy to vote for the libertarian candidate in Virginia.

the libertarian candidate wasn't even a libertarian in Virgina, from what i have heard he was mostly a "democrat bundler funded spoiler", with some very un-libertarian views..,
there are some "few and far between" situations where the third party libertarian can and should win.. and if the republicans keep putting up big government moderates, i will continue to protest vote for libertarians in presidential elections, especially since i live in a "my vote wont count anyway" state..

Simonjester wrote: the libertarian candidate wasn't even a libertarian in Virgina, from what i have heard he was mostly a "democrat  bundler funded spoiler", with some very un-libertarian views..

Of course, the Libertarian party begs to differ, see With Libertarian Sarvis — mission accomplished

Wes Benedict wrote:I realize that, no matter what I say, paranoid right-wingers will think I'm a sneaky operative trying to help Democrats beat Republicans. This message is for the rational people out there.

jan van mourik wrote:

Wes Benedict wrote:I realize that, no matter what I say, paranoid right-wingers will think I'm a sneaky operative trying to help Democrats beat Republicans. This message is for the rational people out there.

I would say that the Obama backer funding that libertarian guy is rational and got his money's worth.

It would not surprise me at all to see the Clinton family use this third party trick again when Hillary runs. I hope Libertarians don't fall for it and help elect her as they elected McCauliffe.

Who knows if that strategy would help Clinton? (A surer bet would be a Cruz run :-)

Finally, while it didn’t change the outcome, the third-party candidate in the race, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, may have made it closer for McAuliffe than it would have been otherwise. Had he not been on the ballot, a third of his voters said they’d have supported McAuliffe – slightly more than twice as many as said they’d have gone for Cuccinelli.

Exit Poll Results Tell a Tale of Two Republicans

Simonjester wrote: i don't fault the libertarians for wanting to get their views out, in fact i tend to strongly support it, i want them in every debate... but if the guy isn't libertarian

his big government positions on climate change, taxes and supporting GPS tracking devices in Virginia cars.

AND he is backed by a major Obama financial supporter, it smells like rat to me...

the republicans pushing to hard on wedge issues that don't help them, and which lots of Americans don't place anywhere near the top of the "important" list, is another big part of their problem, they seem to be trying to win elections as if this was the 1980's.