And then, too, there is the idea of NPA candidates joining forces with Dem candidates. The fact that there are only Republican and Democratic primaries , that I, as a registered NPA cannot vote in? That’s a gear grinder. Grrrrrr
And then, too, there is the idea of NPA candidates joining forces with Dem candidates. The fact that there are only Republican and Democratic primaries , that I, as a registered NPA cannot vote in? That’s a gear grinder. Grrrrrr
Well, for right now, Christine, until the crisis is over, I urge you to enlist in the D army. Your primary vote is needed, and you know you're not going to be voting otherwise until things get cleared up.
This sort of stuff is what I'm hoping we're going to see with the new posting feature here.
As to doing "fusion" tickets, that would be something that has to be looked at very closely. The problem about a Presidential and Vice Presidential set of candidates as different as your suggestion of Biden/Cheney is that one votes for the ticket in the expectation that if something happens to the president, the policies the VP who becomes president would follow would at least be close to those of the former president, since that was what one voted for. That wouldn't be possible in this kind of match-up and it would be unfair to Cheney to expect such.
Right now, we ally on the issues we agree on, with the understanding that when the system has been saved, we can go back to arguing policy differences.
There is however, definitely a need to think through how policies to run on are developed, in order to attract the never-Trump voters. That happens to be the subject of the next post.
As soon as I posted Biden-Cheney as an example, I knew it was a stupid example. For starters, I do not believe Pres Biden will run in 2024. And, Cheney is really not in my wheelhouse of policy.
However, what I do recognize is that many Pubsters I speak with that are seriously opposed to the Trump party….it’s like a whole diff convo than before the madness. We agree on so many more things than we have in the past. I think “labels” have encouraged too many tight corners. I agree about careful thought but somehow “combining forces” for good keeps me up some nights thinking.
I asked a few good friends if they would consider becoming a Democrats. They replied, “But I’m not. I think all I can do at this point is change my registration to NPA or seriously start playing in the playground with Dems and Repubs joining forces against the MAGA a**holes.”
I know there is a way we can do this. Labels should not make us slaves to bullsh*t.
Especially to any allegiance fomented by the “Corporate States of Amerika”.
Oh yes, TC. I forget to add the most interesting thing. I mentioned how convos this year have changed as I notice more agreement during debate. I pointed this out a few times to “friend opponents” noting we didn’t argue about things as much anymore. Why is that, I’ve asked. More than one has lamented, “Christine, Republicans do not have policies anymore so I might as well agree with some of yours, damnit.” Hahahahahahahaha. Something to note. Messaging will be important. Our policies must have something for all.
And then, too, there is the idea of NPA candidates joining forces with Dem candidates. The fact that there are only Republican and Democratic primaries , that I, as a registered NPA cannot vote in? That’s a gear grinder. Grrrrrr
Well, for right now, Christine, until the crisis is over, I urge you to enlist in the D army. Your primary vote is needed, and you know you're not going to be voting otherwise until things get cleared up.
This sort of stuff is what I'm hoping we're going to see with the new posting feature here.
As to doing "fusion" tickets, that would be something that has to be looked at very closely. The problem about a Presidential and Vice Presidential set of candidates as different as your suggestion of Biden/Cheney is that one votes for the ticket in the expectation that if something happens to the president, the policies the VP who becomes president would follow would at least be close to those of the former president, since that was what one voted for. That wouldn't be possible in this kind of match-up and it would be unfair to Cheney to expect such.
Right now, we ally on the issues we agree on, with the understanding that when the system has been saved, we can go back to arguing policy differences.
There is however, definitely a need to think through how policies to run on are developed, in order to attract the never-Trump voters. That happens to be the subject of the next post.
As soon as I posted Biden-Cheney as an example, I knew it was a stupid example. For starters, I do not believe Pres Biden will run in 2024. And, Cheney is really not in my wheelhouse of policy.
However, what I do recognize is that many Pubsters I speak with that are seriously opposed to the Trump party….it’s like a whole diff convo than before the madness. We agree on so many more things than we have in the past. I think “labels” have encouraged too many tight corners. I agree about careful thought but somehow “combining forces” for good keeps me up some nights thinking.
I asked a few good friends if they would consider becoming a Democrats. They replied, “But I’m not. I think all I can do at this point is change my registration to NPA or seriously start playing in the playground with Dems and Repubs joining forces against the MAGA a**holes.”
I know there is a way we can do this. Labels should not make us slaves to bullsh*t.
Especially to any allegiance fomented by the “Corporate States of Amerika”.
Oh yes, TC. I forget to add the most interesting thing. I mentioned how convos this year have changed as I notice more agreement during debate. I pointed this out a few times to “friend opponents” noting we didn’t argue about things as much anymore. Why is that, I’ve asked. More than one has lamented, “Christine, Republicans do not have policies anymore so I might as well agree with some of yours, damnit.” Hahahahahahahaha. Something to note. Messaging will be important. Our policies must have something for all.