Party affiliation

[BigRedBuster]

OK, I have a question for the Republicans and Democrats on this board. I'm talking about the people who are still registered and 100% plan on voting Republican or Democrat because they feel this is the best way for the country.

 

Here is an interesting graph that I'm not surprised at.

 

LINK

 

For more than 70 years, with few exceptions, more Americans have identified as Democrats than Republicans. But the share of independents, which surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans several years ago, continues to increase. Currently, 39% Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. Report: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

% of Americans who say they are …

For more than 70 years, with few exceptions, more Americans have identified as Democrats than Republicans. But the share of independents, which surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans several years ago, continues to increase. Currently, 39% Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. Report: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

You have to click on the link to view the graph.

 

 

So....

 

A) Why are you still affiliated with a political party?

 

B) What would you suggest the party's do to convince people to get back involved with a party?

 

Both Dems and Repubs are at almost an all time low in party affiliation while independents keep rising and are at an all time high.

 

And...for the rest of us....

 

Is this why we see the extreme left and right becoming more and more vocal and powerful?

[teachercd]

A) I am not and never have been affiliated with a party. (I never get invited to them either but that is a different story). I am all over the place with my thoughts and stances so none really fit.

 

B) I think they try to get "people back" by attaching words like "Moderate" and "Right/Left" and "Progressive" and "Conservative" so that they can try and appeal to more people...but I really don't know if it will or does work.

 

I think once they can make online voting or smartphone voting safe/secure you will see voting %'s shoot so far up that it probably won't matter that much anyway.

[NUance]

 

A) Why are you still affiliated with a political party?

 

B) What would you suggest the party's do to convince people to get back involved with a party?

 

Both Dems and Repubs are at almost an all time low in party affiliation while independents keep rising and are at an all time high.

 

And...for the rest of us....

 

Is this why we see the extreme left and right becoming more and more vocal and powerful?

 

 

A) So I can vote in the primary.

 

B) I wish the Republican party would be fiscally responsible. I wish the Democratic party would look out for the interests of the common man. Neither party does these things.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

A) Why are you still affiliated with a political party?

 

B) What would you suggest the party's do to convince people to get back involved with a party?

 

Both Dems and Repubs are at almost an all time low in party affiliation while independents keep rising and are at an all time high.

 

And...for the rest of us....

 

Is this why we see the extreme left and right becoming more and more vocal and powerful?

 

 

A) So I can vote in the primary.

 

B) I wish the Republican party would be fiscally responsible. I wish the Democratic party would look out for the interests of the common man. Neither party does these things.

 

A) I will give you that as an independent, primaries are pretty much meaningless to go to. However, that pretty much is the case just living in Nebraska.

 

B) I agree with that statement.

[TGHusker]

1. Registered a Republican - so I can vote in the primary and have some influence (as much of a fantasy that that might be ) Repubs - typically closer to my political belief system of being pro-life -another illusion of talk but not a lot of action. Same stuff happens wt the Dem party - they have their 'gotcha issues'. Both parties push to these extremes in order to capture a certain segment of the population. Where are pro-choice people to go - but to the Dem party. Where can pro-life people go who see this as a defining issue - but to the repub candidate. Unfortuanately, the Dem party has little space for a 'Pro-life' politician and the Repub party has little room for a Pro-Choice one. Thus we end up wt the extremes. I use to have pro-life Dems I could vote for years ago. On the state level, there still are some. I have voted for Dems for governor, etc on the state level. If Trump and Hillary are the candidates this year - I'll be looking to see who the 3rd party candidate might be - vote throw away - maybe but I have a hard time wt both of them.

 

2. The repub party has to cut their alliance to the MIC & also big oil. There needs to be some bold initiative taken in which we declare we can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. It costs us too much in so many ways - esp young lives. The reason Norway, etc can live the utopia of socialism is because they have big brother USA spending its budget on military bases to protect those countries of Europe, Asia, etc. Let those countries spend their budget on the military. As a country we may want free tuition, one payor or other social programs that the Dems are pushing (which in and of themselves may not be bad if our budget could afford them) unfortunately we can't afford to be the policeman and provide all of the domestic social goodies wtout financial Armageddon. If the Repub party could back down as being the big brother military protector party, then they can promote policies/programs that would draw many into the party - become more domestic orientated. Of course that would take an evaluation of what are really our security interests - this is where big oil comes in. Is protecting Arab Oil our best security interest? No - it drags us into costly wars we don't need to be in, we interfere wt other countries internal issues, etc. So even without talking about Climate Change, we should be developing new sources of energy and maxing out our own fossil fuel capabilities here as a security issue - yes buy the Arab countries oil (I'd rather they run out of reserves before we do) but don't be dependent on it and have to defend it wt a costly military presence. I think being energy independent (using all energy sources - including developing nuclear) would solve a lot of problems. Energy independent also means not being tied to the fossil fuels only. Both of these issues (military strategy change, being all inclusive wt energy sources) would also have an affect on big money's influence on our politics as the MIC and Energy are big players in super pacs, etc.

 

3. I wish both parties would be more inclusive. The dems are just as restrictive as the repubs when it comes to their 'litmus' test. What is wrong wt a pro-life Dem president or a social justice minded Repub? Both parties need to open up their tent. When I was 18 I was a registered Dem but like Ronald Reagan said "The Dem party left me.". Now I see the Repub party leaving me also. If they nominate Trump - flush it

[BigRedBuster]

Very good post TGH. That is almost exactly where I'm at and actually, why I left the Republican party. I couldn't support their actions any more with my membership. I know my vote in the primaries doesn't mean jack so that didn't have any draw to me.

 

I completely agree with your #2. We have close to 800 military installations around the world outside the US. That is just absolutely insane. If we could greatly reduce those, and start paying for infrastructure and programs we want here at home.

 

I am sick and tired of being the policeman of the world. The rest of the world begs us to get involved everywhere and then when we do, they use it against us. (France, Germany, Russia). I want THEM to start stepping up and sacrificing their money and youth.

 

The problem is, to do that, I would still want to greatly boost our naval fleet so that IF we do need to get involved, we have mobility in our military and can still touch everywhere in the world. Well, that's for another thread.

 

You touched on my biggest issue with the parties. There are certain issues that neither party wants to resolve. Abortion is one of them. This issue solidifies their bases and so nobody wants to resolve it. That's just one example.

[HuskerNation1]

I think this is an interesting topic, but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow. There are activists groups on both sides trying to push their own agendas, and they expect their parties (the so-called Establishment) to be purists to meet their ideological desires. Those in office fear losing the support of their extremists bases that control the primary process, and thus they are afraid to "compromise" for fear of being called out. And if there is a hot-button issue they do not want to compromise on such as abortion or immigration, it's often an issue that is so polarizing that the opposing party will do everything to block that issue from moving forward.

 

What Reagan was able to do, and what any good leader should do, is lay out a vision where both sides can agree to the outcomes of that vision. If that can be agreed to, there is progress, and then its up to both sides to figure out the best way to achieve that vision. Even with that said, there are some topics where there will never be a common vision, and we have to just accept it for what it is. So getting back to Reagan, I'm not sure if he would have been quite as successful in today's social media culture, but I think his approach to governing was inclusive and not focused on pitting different minority or special interest groups against each other. Obama is the exact opposite of Reagan in this regard, as his mojo is finding those groups that will give him more votes/support and doing everything possible to help them at the detriment of the 47-49% that did not support him. If the next President can truly find a way to focus on being the President for all Americans, I think it will help to change the trend line of the bitter partisanship we have today.

[Landlord]

I think this is an interesting topic, but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow.

 

 

Dude everything you post is in defense of your conservative tribe. If you fear it, why are you contributing to it?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

I think this is an interesting topic, but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow.

 

Dude everything you post is in defense of your conservative tribe. If you fear it, why are you contributing to it?

Who said that I personally feared "it." I think its a non-partisan view that one of the consequences of the technological revolution is that it allows for more citizens to argue at the extremes. This is not a conservative vs liberal viewpoint despite your desire to see everything through a partisan lens.

[Saunders]

I'm very much an independent. Original ideologies aside, the current parties are 2 sides of the same coin, minus variables on certain social issues. They both are for furthering government power, while they are beholden to special interests and corporations. Both parties have stood by, or supported, increased domestic surveillance, detaining people without due process, meddling in middle-eastern affairs, and trying to play world police, all under guise of security.

[BigRedBuster]

Would the two parties change drastically if we changed the primary system?

Think about it. Right now, all candidates are having to appeal to the extremes because that is the only group that they are trying to get votes from to become the candidate. Neither side really cares about appealing to moderates or the other side because if they don't win the primary, they obviously have no shot in the general.

 

What if a system were set up so that some how (and I don't know what that would be) it took away the motivation to pander to the extremes in the primaries?

[teachercd]

Would the two parties change drastically if we changed the primary system?

 

Think about it. Right now, all candidates are having to appeal to the extremes because that is the only group that they are trying to get votes from to become the candidate. Neither side really cares about appealing to moderates or the other side because if they don't win the primary, they obviously have no shot in the general.

 

What if a system were set up so that some how (and I don't know what that would be) it took away the motivation to pander to the extremes in the primaries?

I think so...or a direct election. I think it would change things. I think online voting will change things too...once they figure out how to make it "safe" and "secure"

[BigRedBuster]

I think this is an interesting topic, but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow. There are activists groups on both sides trying to push their own agendas, and they expect their parties (the so-called Establishment) to be purists to meet their ideological desires. Those in office fear losing the support of their extremists bases that control the primary process, and thus they are afraid to "compromise" for fear of being called out. And if there is a hot-button issue they do not want to compromise on such as abortion or immigration, it's often an issue that is so polarizing that the opposing party will do everything to block that issue from moving forward.

 

What Reagan was able to do, and what any good leader should do, is lay out a vision where both sides can agree to the outcomes of that vision. If that can be agreed to, there is progress, and then its up to both sides to figure out the best way to achieve that vision. Even with that said, there are some topics where there will never be a common vision, and we have to just accept it for what it is. So getting back to Reagan, I'm not sure if he would have been quite as successful in today's social media culture, but I think his approach to governing was inclusive and not focused on pitting different minority or special interest groups against each other. Obama is the exact opposite of Reagan in this regard, as his mojo is finding those groups that will give him more votes/support and doing everything possible to help them at the detriment of the 47-49% that did not support him. If the next President can truly find a way to focus on being the President for all Americans, I think it will help to change the trend line of the bitter partisanship we have today.

The problem I go back to is the media in this country. I believe the reason the extremes keep getting worse is that each side has their media they have bought and payed for and the sheep on both sides only listen to the media that agrees with their view of the world. So, it reinforces their flawed views and they keep getting more and more extreme. Social media has caused this to explode.

 

Nobody sits back and actually tries to understand the other side's opinions and why they believe the way they do. The media and social media just allows dislike, distrust and disdain to fester and get worse.

[Landlord]

Who said that I personally feared "it."

 

 

 

 

 

but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow.

[StPaulHusker]

I believe if you affiliate with a particular party you are not very smart or open minded you you should be ashamed of yourself.