• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

candidate or party?

Do you vote for the candidate or the party?

  • I vote for the candidate!

    Votes: 29 87.9%
  • I vote for the party!

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Total voters
    33
This. Unless the candidate is an independent then he'll be adopting the platform of his party, so I'll be voting more for the party platform than the candidate.

And since the only two parties capable of winning a major race are Republicans and Democrats, then those are the only two worth focusing on.

And since each party will have to cater to their base in order to be elected, that counts out Republicans for me.

Of course, there could be exceptions, like if Satan, Prince of Lies, were to run as a Democrat. But no presidential race would ever be that awesome.



You're just not listening.
 
Honestly it depends on if you are talking about the Presidential race or the if we are talking congressman/woman. Presidential elections i vote for the candidate. When voting for Congress i usually vote for the party of the president, just for the sake of progress.


How do you define progress?
 
This is quite possibly one of the most depressing threads I've seen. Vote for the party because 'that's just the way it is"? If that's the general consensus, we deserve to fail as a nation.
 
I usually vote for individual candidates. However, there are exceptions. For example, the California legislature is dominated by democrats that have over-taxed and economically gutted our state. Therefore, I vote a straight republican ticket for the state legislature. Nationally, the GOP dominated congress has been nothing but in-fighting obstructionists, with stated hopes of implementing what I believe will be draconian social measures on a national level and plan to give corporations and the country's wealthiest individuals even more power while paying less taxes. I vote a straight democratic ticket for congress now, whereas in the past when the democrats held too much power in congress, I voted a straight GOP ticket.

Both political parties suck. Both will, if given unfettered power, ruin this country. As long as politicians are bought and paid for under our current campaign contribution laws, nothing will change for the better.



It sounds like you vote a straight "spend more than you can ever collect" ticket.
 
Do you vote for a candidate or do you vote for a party?

With the divide that is plain to see between the parties; are you motivated to vote for a politician based on the stance that he/she takes on the issues or do you vote based on the ideals of one of the political parties?

28 to 4.Now that is a damn lie considering the number of party-tards voting for Romney and Obama.

I vote for the candidate.I don't give a damn about party.
 
Do you vote for a candidate or do you vote for a party?

With the divide that is plain to see between the parties; are you motivated to vote for a politician based on the stance that he/she takes on the issues or do you vote based on the ideals of one of the political parties?

I've been pretty loyal to the party, but that could change quickly if my party keeps nominating RINOs.
 
I've been pretty loyal to the party, but that could change quickly if my party keeps nominating RINOs.



I know how you feel. The hope is that the TEA party folks will continue to gain ground.
 
I will always vote for the candidate over the party. I've voted for Democrats who closer espouse my beliefs, even though as a rule of thumb I vote Republican.

A symbol is no replacement for a platform, and for anyone to vote the former over the latter is truly a lost soul - part of the degradation of the American republic.
 
How do you define progress?

Getting something done. No bills are being signed right now and no solutions are being made to our problems. Voting for a unified congress will at least give a president a chance to do something to get us out of this mess. As of now, everything is shot down before anything comes of it because it is not the right party proposing it, and the President is given essentially no option other then to wait it out. Republicans do not want to hear what Democrats are saying and Democrats do not want to hear what Republicans are saying.
 
Getting something done. No bills are being signed right now and no solutions are being made to our problems. Voting for a unified congress will at least give a president a chance to do something to get us out of this mess. As of now, everything is shot down before anything comes of it because it is not the right party proposing it, and the President is given essentially no option other then to wait it out. Republicans do not want to hear what Democrats are saying and Democrats do not want to hear what Republicans are saying.


So, if you house was burning down and the options were to a) do nothing, b) dowse it with water and c) dowse it with gasoline, you would favor b and c over a because both represent action?

Again, how do you define progress? Progress toward what? Away from what? To accomplish what?

A crystal Vase that sits on a shelf is not making any progress. A crystal vase falling toward a rocky ledge is making progress toward the ledge. All things considered, it's better for the vase to be on the shelf than continue its progress toward the rocky ledge.
 
Getting something done. No bills are being signed right now and no solutions are being made to our problems. Voting for a unified congress will at least give a president a chance to do something to get us out of this mess. As of now, everything is shot down before anything comes of it because it is not the right party proposing it, and the President is given essentially no option other then to wait it out. Republicans do not want to hear what Democrats are saying and Democrats do not want to hear what Republicans are saying.

Much of this is just standard party politics and has always occurred. Filibuster, no not the same then as it is now, but these are the things that you can readily find stated by senators in the last 20-30 years (one time in he 80s Moynihan both stated mournfully that "the debate in he senate" is not what it used to be, but was also quick to point out it wasn't quite what everyone thought t was to begin with), matters that seemed all too common for our founding fathers in their writings, and all the more noticeable toward the coming of civil war.

So yes, politics isn't a beautiful woman, but it's a necessary, and traditional bitch of a service provided to mankind.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom