How many folks vote on a single issue or two?

[bongsaway]

Let's say guns and abortion.

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

 

[OrphanSlug]

There is no way this is a serious effort to "figure out why the average person votes republican."

 

[tres borrachos]

Let's say guns and abortion.

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

I used to vote Republican 100% of the time, because I was raised as a conservative. No, not one of those freaky conservatives who had vapors about what consenting adults were doing in their bedrooms, or got on their religious high horses about God and abortion. A REAL conservative who voted for low spending, small government, and government getting the hell out of our personal lives, and also decency (no, not that fraudulent "family values" crap).

The GOP over the last 40 years has completely left me. I don't even recognize the party anymore.

Guns were never a voting issue for me, but my husband is a big 2A guy so guns are an issue to him. Abortion shouldn't be an issue. It's a matter of privacy.

 

[Rickeroo]

Let's say guns and abortion.

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

My primary reason for voting against democrats is how they frame race.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

My primary reason for voting against democrats is how they frame race.

My primary reason for voting against republicans is that they've become what's essentially a criminal syndicate.

 

[Idiometer]

Let's say guns and abortion.

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

I don't think "the average person" votes Republican. I think we mostly vote with the party that seems to reflect our personal values, and I think millions of voters are single issue voters, the majority of whom vote for the candidate that will save them the most money, either through an improved economy and better paying jobs, or through reducing the ridiculously high cost of health care or the equally ridiculously high cost of education.

Then there are those that, for whatever reason, feel strongly that women should be under control as far as their reproductive processes are concerned, or believe that abortion is akin to murdering babies, and will only vote for anti-choice candidates. What I find most puzzling is why those candidates keep winning when the majority of Americans are pro-choice.

People can't be put into boxes that easily (nor baskets, Hillary -- what a dumb thing to say). We are complex creatures.

 

[Rogue Valley]

My primary reason for voting against republicans is that they've become what's essentially a criminal syndicate.

I'll never vote for Republicans again until Donald Trump and all of his Congressional enablers are gone. Ergo, probably never again.

 

[Idiometer]

My primary reason for voting against democrats is how they frame race.

Can you please provide an example?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I'll never vote for Republicans again until Donald Trump and all of his Congressional enablers are gone. Ergo, probably never again.

Until evangelicals lose their grip on the party and the socially conservative aspects of the platform are gone, I'd never consider even liberal-leaning republicans.

 

[tres borrachos]

Until evangelicals lose their grip on the party and the socially conservative aspects of the platform are gone, I'd never consider even liberal-leaning republicans.

I'm going to make an exception in 2020, and will vote for my Republican governor, Chris Sununu, because he hasn't let the evangelicals commandeer the party up here, and he also isn't a Trump fan.

But he may be the last GOP vote I ever make.....

 

[chuckiechan]

Let's say guns and abortion.

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

I concern myself with the intermediate to long term direction of the country. I believe that work, jobs, and paying taxes is what makes American workers a powerhouse. I see unchecked immigration as asking nothing of your new arrivals, other than to let their desperation be exploited. In most ways it is an excuse for companies not to train our poor and more challenged population. We cant force a company to hire and train in the ghetto, but if there is a labor shortage they may change their minds. A strong economy can cure a lot of problems.

The conditions in too many big cities have remained islands in a sea of plenty, and those cities are run by democrats using democrat ideas. Democrats for some reason have a hard time saying “no” to obviously bad ideas. Only fools are all in on one or the other, we usually have one or two specific issues and a general over all feel of where they want our leaders to lead us. That is why the lie to us all the time.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

I suspect the “average” person votes on the basis of much more emotional and generic motivations that consideration of any specific issues or policies. Anything during the campaign that’s been high-profile enough to make the headlines in the week or so running up to when the person votes may well influence them but I think it’d be a rare case where a singular issue or two is the entire motivation for their choice of vote. Sadly, a warm smile and a well-cut suit is likely to win more votes than a coherent economic policy platform.

 

[Felis Leo]

Let's say guns and abortion.

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

Here is why I vote Republican in no particular order:

1. Preserving free speech and expression for both religious and non-religious people alike.
2. Elimination of onerous and burdensome regulations on businesses
3. Preservation of the state of Israel.
4. Preservation of gun rights.
5. Support of law enforcement and harsh penalties for crime.

 

[Grandpappy]

Trump got my vote because he actually considers the American worker in trade deals and other policies.
The Dems lost my vote because they've gone off the rails with PC BS, illegal aliens, gun grabbing, liberal idiocy, high taxes..

As far as abortion goes, it should remain legal, with some exceptions.

 

[Helix]

I'm not much of a single issue voter under normal circumstances, but my current top issue is flushing this stupid cult down the john.

 

[SCrider]

Here is why I vote Republican in no particular order:

1. Preserving free speech and expression for both religious and non-religious people alike.
2. Elimination of onerous and burdensome regulations on businesses
3. Preservation of the state of Israel.
4. Preservation of gun rights.
5. Support of law enforcement and harsh penalties for crime.

Number 5 seems to be a "flexible" one for many conservatives in the Trump era.

 

[Good4Nothin]

There are several issues I care most about, and Democrats are usually fighting for the opposite of what I believe. I agree with Democrats/progressives that we have to care about the environment, and that we shouldn't hate people just because of superficial racial appearance, or sex preference. I agree that early abortions should always be legal and easy to get. Aside from those, I mostly disagree with them.

I disagree with Democrats that a big government can make life fair for everyone.

I disagree that this country can and should let anyone in and should take care of the whole world.

I disagree that military defense is not important.

Democrats seem very aligned with Big Drug, Big Tech, Big Science and Big Ag. Not that Republicans aren't, but it's more the Democrats. Now we are seeing censorship of certain ideas, thanks to Big Tech.

Democrats/progressives are more likely to despise religion and to think religious or spiritual believers are stupid.

Democrats are more likely to feel smart and superior, even if they aren't. They are more likely to see themselves as kindhearted and generous, even if they aren't. They are more likely to believe that Big Science has, or can find, all the answers.

 

[Condor060]

Let's say guns and abortion.

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

I am a conservative but I vote for the candidate who is more in line with the constitution. Not a candidate who thinks the constitution is a living document to be changed when it doesn't serve their purpose. Everything else is secondary.

 

[Rickeroo]

Can you please provide an example?

In politics, whenever a segregating term is used against American unity (terms such as "white", "black", and the increasingly popular "of color"), it's a turn off for me. Democrats use those terms more than republicans.

 

[Craig234]

Let's say guns and abortion.

I'm trying to figure out why the average person votes republican. And please, try to keep the government bad, taxes bad answers to a minimum.

I'll offer an answer.

Because plutocrat and right-wing media interests looking to build their market with 'alternative' politics target people for right-wing propaganda, pushing an ideology to support plutocracy and pandering to any views they have, looking for any issue to win them over from abortion to fear and hate of immigrants - and guns - and people fall for it.

 

[Craig234]

I am a conservative but I vote for the candidate who is more in line with the constitution. Not a candidate who thinks the constitution is a living document to be changed when it doesn't serve their purpose. Everything else is secondary.

You don't seem to understand the constitution is a framework for our government, but does not decide most policies, which are intended to be what people vote about. Whether a candidate is 'in line with the constitution' shouldn't even be a question. I guess 'in line with the constitution' is right-wing code for 'agrees with you on abortion and how you view the second amendment and unlimited gerrymandering' and so on.

I do get tired of the right's false argument about the issue of a 'changing' constitution, since they LOVE when the court changes the constitution and they agree with the changes, but just dishonestly won't admit that's what happened.

It's a propaganda lie the right uses to claim they are somehow more faithful to the constitution, when not only are they using that claim to simply try to falsely claim their preferred view is the not only better but is the 'original intent', but they use the false claim to often describe positions that are the corrupt and radical positions not consistent with the intent.

It's also disingenuous because it lies about the real issue that the constitution is NOT clear about a lot and CANNOT be based on what's in the document, and good faith and yes, even political opinions affect the interpretation.

For example, the 9th and 10th amendments reinforce the constitution's position that most rights it intends to guarantee people are NOT listed explicitly in the constitution or the bill of rights. Can you list every such right that's protected but not listed? No, you instead to prefer to simply attack any such right you don't agree with as 're-writing the constitution'.

For example, when the equal rights language was added, there was zero intent for it to apply to many specific issues, such as gay people having an equal right to marry. And yet, following the constitution's principles, it DOES clearly guarantee that equal right - even if our politics had to change to recognize that.

So is the right capable of understanding that and following the constitution? Most are not, and falsely claim that it's the court acting wrongly to interpret the constitution as protecting that equal right, and to claim the Justices who rule for the equality are ignoring the constitution.

Yet the right is thrilled for their Justices to do exactly that - for example, nowhere does the constitution say that using an unlimited amount of money to buy our elections is what the right to free speech means, yet the right cheers when the court creates that interpretation, re-writing the constitution to please the wealthy Republican donors who put them on the court.

 

[Condor060]

You don't seem to understand the constitution is a framework for our government, but does not decide most policies, which are intended to be what people vote about. Whether a candidate is 'in line with the constitution' shouldn't even be a question. I guess 'in line with the constitution' is right-wing code for 'agrees with you on abortion and how you view the second amendment and unlimited gerrymandering' and so on.

Its that same lack of understanding why I don't vote for anyone who thinks the constitution is just a framework for government. Because its not. It protects the citizens of the United States and guarantees their basic rights. It guarantees the peoples freedoms. It guarantees to individuals a variety of rights ranging from economic liberty to criminal procedure rights to protection from arbitrary governmental action.

It shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Bill of Rights consists of guarantees of civil liberties and checks on state power.

Not to mention it stops the Government from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not abide by any candidate that dances around its obligations. If a candidate doesn't feel they are bound by this document and doesn't feel the need to address it, then they need go no further with me, my family, or anyone I actually know.

What issue could a candidate profess that has more importance? If they have no duty or feel they have no duty or elude to its lack of importance, how could I trust them to abide by its contents.

 

[Craig234]

There are several issues I care most about, and Democrats are usually fighting for the opposite of what I believe. I agree with Democrats/progressives that we have to care about the environment, and that we shouldn't hate people just because of superficial racial appearance, or sex preference. I agree that early abortions should always be legal and easy to get. Aside from those, I mostly disagree with them.

So far, so good.

I disagree with Democrats that a big government can make life fair for everyone.

You should be a lot more specific about that. What do you mean?

Are you saying that a government having a massive budget for corrupt military contractor spending as the largest budget item is 'big government' you disagree with? Are you saying you are opposed to, say, public education? You don't begin to address the people's interest in unlimited inequality and plutocracy being limited - when it's the private sector that becomes too 'big' and tyrannical, not the government.

'Big government' is a propaganda term, not very useful for discussion. When FDR had 'big government' programs that built much of our country's infrastructure we still enjoy, in order to employ people so they didn't starve, are you against that?

I disagree that this country can and should let anyone in and should take care of the whole world.

Again, meaningless and vague, and a straw man. Effectively no one supports letting 'anyone in', and the issues have almost nothing to do with 'taking care of the whole world'. For a start, the issues do include our EXPLOITING much of the world, and CAUSING problems - we could start 'taking care' by reducing the harm.

For example, many refugees are legitimately fleeing Honduras - because in large part WE - and by WE, I mean our country but it was largely Hillary's policy - supported a coup in Honduras that cause a lot of suffering. The Middle East is filled with refugee problems, in no small part because of weapons we sell and policies we have.

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of causes, but there are many times we could do some good - if we invest in Latin America, the principle of JFK's Alliance for Progress, we could do a lot of mutual good - including reducing refugees and giving each other economic benefits. Your comment doesn't begin to talk about the actual issues.

1/3

 

[Craig234]

I disagree that military defense is not important.

Another straw man - effectively no one says military defense is not important. Saying that's Democrats' position is a lie that people who want an unlimited, utterly corrupt, massive, dangerous spending on military contractors would say. People who would defend the US spending nearly as much as all our allied and enemies combined would say that.

Democrats seem very aligned with Big Drug, Big Tech, Big Science and Big Ag. Not that Republicans aren't, but it's more the Democrats. Now we are seeing censorship of certain ideas, thanks to Big Tech

That's an ignorant position. I am not writing you a 10,000 line post to explain this, but I'll give an example.

Perhaps the single largest government policy change on big pharma in decades was one of Bush 43's top priorities: Big Pharma was then the top industry for donations to REPUBLICANS, and Republicans were going to reward their donations. So they came up with Medicare Part D as a vehicle to give Big Pharma hundreds of billions of tax dollars, for free.

The program was designed not to benefit the patients - whose costs often went UP in the 'doughnut' pricing - but a clause was put in which banned the government from negotiating any discounts from list prices.

How long do you want me to explain the corruption? The government analyst who had the role to identify the costs of the bill had his job threatened by the administration if he released the information - information that it would give hundreds of billions of EXTRA money to the drug companies than if negotiations were allowed. The Republican Congressman in charge of the bill's passage resigned soon after it passed to become the head of Big Pharma lobbying with a salary of millions per year. When the bill failed by a few votes because even some Republicans disliked the corrupt spending, the Republicans, in an unprecedented action, just extended the vote all night while the leadership walked the floor and bribed and threatened the members to change their votes - such as offering to fund a member's son's political campaign, but blacklist him if the member didn't change their vote - until they won.

That's just one example. You simply don't understand the corruption and which party gets what.

Democrats/progressives are more likely to despise religion and to think religious or spiritual believers are stupid.

This one has more to explain.

First, religion should be kept to a minimum in politics - as apolitical as possible. That's not to say it doesn't have some important role - everything from people's opposition to murder resulting in laws against murder, to people's caring about the poor and government programs to reduce poverty, can overlap between religious views and government policy.

But atheists, liberal Christians, evangelical Christians, Muslims and many others need to 'get along', which is why some respect for people to have freedoms and rights on this is important.

Now, a few comments. First, it's a propaganda message, a manipulation, to try to get your support by building resentment. People who are plutocrats, who want to take your power and money, try to get your support by saying things like 'Democrats look down on you, you should hate them and vote for us'. Don't fall for the manipulation. That's a common technique. It was used by Nazis to get Germans to hate Jews - claiming Jews had some superiority the people should resent; it was used by Republicans when they came up with the attack 'Limousine Liberals' to get people to resent Democrats who were actually on the people's side, while the people making the attack were the 'elites' trying to take from the people.

2/3

 

[Craig234]

Second, the polarization on religion largely comes about from the Republicans' politicizing it, since Reagan's building of the 'religious right', intentionally trying to convert as many Christians as possible to support Republicans, by pandering to them on any number of issues they could find.

The people who have threatened the 'freedoms' the most on religious issues have been these Republican religious voters - who, for example, made one of their most important issues for a long time preventing gay people from being able to get married. They've also tried to make 'the right to discriminate' into a right for themselves, under the name of 'religious liberty'. So, for example, if they refuse to hire gay workers, that's not discrimination against gays - it's just THEIR religious freedom, and any limits on their discriminating are denying THEM rights. There's seemingly no end to the ways the manipulators find to convince these targeted 'religious right' voters that they are victims of Democrats, to pander to them, to get their votes.

Thirdly, this polarization DOES create some increased conflicts. The more 'religious right' voters hate Democrats as you describe above, and the more they vote for right-wing policies as a result such as allowing the oil companies to pollute more or to leave people without healthcare, the more Democrats do resent them. The more they fall for con jobs, the more Democrats do resent that.

It's not mistreating them for their religion, so much as disliking their falling for the 'religious right' con and supporting Republican politics that are harmful.

Most of the things I see the religious right people think about Democrats are wrong - hyped fears that are lies fed to them by propagandists. Some differences are real - abortion, gay marriage, etc. But many are lies and exaggerations. There has been a real effort to create this divide for the benefit of the wealthy Republican interests, by using issues to polarize.

Really, religious values are a lot more aligned with *Democrats* for the most part.

It's not easy to tell people who have been conned, that they have - people don't like to admit they were. So the more Democrats say, 'you are being conned', the more the people who have been conned think that just proves Democrats are looking down on them.

Democrats are more likely to feel smart and superior, even if they aren't. They are more likely to see themselves as kindhearted and generous, even if they aren't. They are more likely to believe that Big Science has, or can find, all the answers.

That's really a lot of emotional stuff that isn't what votes should be based on - it's the stuff of propaganda used to get you to vote the way other interests want you to.

As far as science - on that we might disagree. Again, you weren't very specific.

But when science said cigarettes are killing people, big tobacco donated to Republicans who spent decades saying 'the science isn't settled', protecting tobacco companies in Republican states.

When science said manmade activities, mostly fossil fuel use, filling the atmosphere with too much carbon are going to cause great harm to the climate, the huge companies who profit from the use of fossil fuels paid Republicans to deny the science.

So I'm not sure what you are citing specifically - but as I type, the corrupt trump administration is destroying the government's scientific capabilities to serve these corrupt interests, ordering the USDA scientists to relocate to Kansas - it's estimated 90% will resign. Problem of 'science' and pesky science talking about the climate solved.

If you are against that science, then Republicans are your party. But why would be be against the science?

I'd encourage you not to vote based on 'emotion' and manipulations to get you to resent other people, but on issues and policies and who serves your interests and the good of the country. Republicans are basically 100% corrupt as a party in who they serve, and they use pandering to try to get votes. There's a high cost to people either falling for their cons or voting based on the pandering.

They might get a politician who hates gay marriage the way they like, but who votes for trillions of more dollars to get to the rich, instead of the American people, as the price.

3/3