House GOP fears retirement wave will lead to tsunami

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@roamer_1

But that is not how it is taken @Maj. Bill Martin .

Taken by whom, exactly?  Trump won the GOP nomination with less than 45% of the GOP vote, yet he got over 90% of the Republican votes in the general election.  Very clearly, he was not the Republican a majority of Republicans preferred, but they preferred him to the Democrat alternative.  Most of the people with whom I interact completely understand the concept of voting for someone with whom you have some disagreements, simply because you believe the alternative is worse.  The whole idea of "if you voted for him, it means you support everything he does/stands for" is a strawman.  It simply is not true, people know it isn't true, but say it anyway because they think it gives them a rhetorical advantage.

Nobody does all that navel gazing.  Tumpy went forth like he had a mandate, even though it was a very narrow win, and with a depressed electorate.

You're the one doing navel gazing, and reading into other peoples' votes things that are not there.  My vote can fairly be read as "I preferred the things Trump advocated over the things Hillary advocated."  That's particularly true over the two biggest issues on which he ran -- the Supreme Court, and border security.  So I don't have an issue with that.  But trying to impute "your vote means that you approve of all of his statements and personal conduct" is without any rational basis.

You only have an affirmative vote, and the vote you cast is approval of the agenda and the man.

More navel gazing.  And no, it isn't.  The vast majority of people understand that a vote is an expression of relative preference -- the idea that "I don't really like either of these two, but I think X is worse so I'm voting for Y" has been openly discussed and acknowledged by for decades.  We talk about it all the time here -- the "lesser of two evils" vote.  To pretend such votes don't exist, and that they are all just blanket endorsements of candidates, defies reality.  You and others may disagree with it as a matter of political strategy, but saying "it means you support everything about them" is very much a minority view.  And I'm not certainly not going the views of an idiosyncratic minority determine how I will vote.

So, read into it whatever you want.  Doesn't make it true.

[Cyber Liberty]

The whole idea of "if you voted for him, it means you support everything he does/stands for" is a strawman.  It simply is not true, people know it isn't true, but say it anyway because they think it gives them a rhetorical advantage.

And I thought I was the only person who feels that way.  One can always find a policy or decision that is not agreeable to all, no matter who the politician in question is.  It's quite unfair to tar his followers with that and call them "unprincipled."  It's up there with "If you don't vote for my guy, you are for the opposition."

I'm not going to agree with any politician's actions 100%, unless that politician is me.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And I thought I was the only person who feels that way.  One can always find a policy or decision that is not agreeable to all, no matter who the politician in question is.  It's quite unfair to tar his followers with that and call them "unprincipled."  It's up there with "If you don't vote for my guy, you are for the opposition."

I'm not going to agree with any politician's actions 100%, unless that politician is me.

@Cyber Liberty

You feel that way, I feel that way...and so does just about everyone else.  But somehow, that reality gets ignored in a lot of political debates.  It's just really odd.

[roamer_1]

Taken by whom, exactly?

[...]

The whole idea of "if you voted for him, it means you support everything he does/stands for" is a strawman.  It simply is not true, people know it isn't true, but say it anyway because they think it gives them a rhetorical advantage.

Then it should be an easy thing, @Maj. Bill Martin , to tell me how your vote expresses all of that discrimination. How that single act transmits to the politician all the nuances that you claim are there...

You will not because you cannot. In fact, continuing to support moderate or even liberal Republicans *with your votes* is EXACTLY what keeps them in power.

It isn't a rhetorical point, it is a bare fact.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Then it should be an easy thing, @Maj. Bill Martin , to tell me how your vote expresses all of that discrimination. How that single act transmits to the politician all the nuances that you claim are there...

You've got it backwards.  It's not that the vote transmits any nuances -- it's that it only transmits one thing:  that I would prefer that candidate be elected as opposed to the Democrat nominee.  That's it.  It does not transmit that I support any particular positions, or any particular qualities of a particular candidate.

It may mean I love them both, but love one just a bit more.  It may mean I hate them both, but hate one a bit less.  Maybe I sorta like one, and sorta hate the other.  Who the hell knows? The only thing it means for sure is that I prefer one be elected over the other.

[roamer_1]

You've got it backwards.  It's not that the vote transmits any nuances -- it's that it only transmits one thing:  that I would prefer that candidate be elected as opposed to the Democrat nominee.  That's it.  It does not transmit that I support any particular positions, or any particular qualities of a particular candidate.

It may mean I love them both, but love one just a bit more.  It may mean I hate them both, but hate one a bit less.  Maybe I sorta like one, and sorta hate the other.  Who the hell knows? The only thing it means for sure is that I prefer one be elected over the other.

@Maj. Bill Martin
No, I have it dang well right - Or there would be more Conservatives elected than RINOs in the Republican party. It is Republican votes sustaining those RINOs.

[EdJames]

@Maj. Bill Martin
No, I have it dang well right - Or there would be more Conservatives elected than RINOs in the Republican party. It is Republican votes sustaining those RINOs.

I am confused.

I always thought that is was because the establishment-backed "RINO" candidates typically have more resources and funding behind their campaigns....  hence leading to an advantage come election day....  I've seen it time after time....  the more conservative, usually the "upstart," candidate struggling to win the primary is so over-matched in terms of dollars and party-based resources, that most voters see their names for the first time on the primary ballot.  And human nature causes more people to cast their vote for the name that they at least recognize....

I always thought that was the problem at hand....

 

[Jazzhead]

@Maj. Bill Martin
No, I have it dang well right - Or there would be more Conservatives elected than RINOs in the Republican party. It is Republican votes sustaining those RINOs.

It is Republican votes that sustain the "RINOs",  and Republican votes that elect the "Conservatives" you apparently prefer.  One thing's for certain - folks like yourself who cite "principles" to not vote at all (or to cast meaningless vanity votes for third party candidates)  have chosen to withdraw from the process by which we citizens elect our representatives.   That's fine - voting (or not voting) is a voluntary act,  but it's always struck me as odd that, as interested in civic matters as you obviously are as evidenced by the articulate opinions you express on this board, you withdraw from the actual process of choosing.

You talk the talk but won't walk the walk, and insist that makes you virtuous?    I just don't get it, @roamer_1 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin
No, I have it dang well right - Or there would be more Conservatives elected than RINOs in the Republican party. It is Republican votes sustaining those RINOs.

You've lost me.  I have no idea what that statement has to do with the meaning you personally attach to votes cast by other people, which is what we were discussing.  Nobody asks the meaning behind a particular vote when it is counted.  It counts exactly the same regardless of why someone cast it for a particular candidate.

As to this RINO v. conservatie issue you just raised, the reason some RINOs get elected is because they win GOP primaries.  If you want to replace the RINOs with conservatives, you need to convince more GOP primary voters to vote for conservatives over RINOs.  Of course, some GOP voters -- more so in some states than others -- aren't conservatives, so they're probably not going to do that.  And some GOP voters place a higher priority on things like likability or character than they do on ideology, so you may have a hard time convincing them as well.

If we could magically replace all those non-conservative GOP voters with conservative GOP voters, that would solve the problem.  Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible.

[roamer_1]

I am confused.

I always thought that is was because the establishment-backed "RINO" candidates typically have more resources and funding behind their campaigns....  hence leading to an advantage come election day....  I've seen it time after time....  the more conservative, usually the "upstart," candidate struggling to win the primary is so over-matched in terms of dollars and party-based resources, that most voters see their names for the first time on the primary ballot.  And human nature causes more people to cast their vote for the name that they at least recognize....

I always thought that was the problem at hand....

 

I would accept that in part @EdJames , but that in itself expresses a certain Laissez-faire in the Republican electorate that basically says the same thing. If you are not willing to seek out the candidates, and judge them fairly, then your tacit approval of party politics is already rendered. Especially so in the primary, where even the pragmatists say one should vote their conscience.

[EdJames]

I would accept that in part @EdJames , but that in itself expresses a certain Laissez-faire in the Republican electorate that basically says the same thing. If you are not willing to seek out the candidates, and judge them fairly, then your tacit approval of party politics is already rendered. Especially so in the primary, where even the pragmatists say one should vote their conscience.

Well, I suppose that it does.  (I referred to it as human nature, not necessarily a positive aspect of it.)

Over the years I spent a fair amount of my time, energy, and dollars trying to get conservative candidates through the primary process.  Some of our defeats (by two orders of magnitude in the tallied votes) were certainly depressing.  Always the toughest when the "RINO" opponent is the incumbent.

As Major Bill notes, not all of the Republican primary voters will prefer the more conservative candidate, but sometimes I think that they could have been swayed if they at least knew the name of our guy/gal before the got the ballot....

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It is Republican votes that sustain the "RINOs",  and Republican votes that elect the "Conservatives" you apparently prefer.  One thing's for certain - folks like yourself who cite "principles" to not vote at all (or to cast meaningless vanity votes for third party candidates)  have chosen to withdraw from the process by which we citizens elect our representatives.   That's fine - voting (or not voting) is a voluntary act,  but it's always struck me as odd that, as interested in civic matters as you obviously are as evidenced by the articulate opinions you express on this board, you withdraw from the actual process of choosing.

You talk the talk but won't walk the walk, and insist that makes you virtuous?    I just don't get it, @roamer_1

My understanding is that @roamer_1 does vote in the GOP primary for conservatives, and will vote for them in the general election if they win the primary.  So he hasn't abandoned the process.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

As Major Bill notes, not all of the Republican primary voters will prefer the more conservative candidate, but sometimes I think that they could have been swayed if they at least knew the name of our guy/gal before the got the ballot....

The most depressing thing for me to see is how important "likability" is for so many voters, both in the primaries and in the general election.  You really can't even discuss voting with those people because it defaults to "I just like him/her better."

[berdie]

The most depressing thing for me to see is how important "likability" is for so many voters, both in the primaries and in the general election.  You really can't even discuss voting with those people because it defaults to "I just like him/her better."

Likable...or cute. 

[roamer_1]

One thing's for certain - folks like yourself who cite "principles" to not vote at all (or to cast meaningless vanity votes for third party candidates)  have chosen to withdraw from the process by which we citizens elect our representatives.   That's fine - voting (or not voting) is a voluntary act,  but it's always struck me as odd that, as interested in civic matters as you obviously are as evidenced by the articulate opinions you express on this board, you withdraw from the actual process of choosing.

There is a serious failure in logic to suppose one should vote *for* what one opposes.
There is likewise a serious failure in logic to vote against anything when your vote can only be a positive affirmation.
And lastly, it can hardly be a vanity to vote for a candidate that does in fact espouse what you believe in - In fact, that is the exact and expressed intention of the founders, that we all vote our conscience... And by and large, those pleas from our founders were made wrt the partisanship that they knew they were creating, and as a balm against it.

You talk the talk but won't walk the walk, and insist that makes you virtuous?    I just don't get it, @roamer_1

Quite the opposite @Jazzhead - I do walk the walk, which is why I cannot support the choices so many of y'all make.

And I do not consider myself virtuous. That's an incendiary claim, and in a word, bullcrap.

[roamer_1]

You've lost me.  I have no idea what that statement has to do with the meaning you personally attach to votes cast by other people, which is what we were discussing.  Nobody asks the meaning behind a particular vote when it is counted.  It counts exactly the same regardless of why someone cast it for a particular candidate.

I rest my case - your vote is only a positive affirmation. So when you positively affirm a RINO over a dem, you are in fact affirming the RINO agenda, not refusing the dem agenda.

As to this RINO v. conservatie issue you just raised, the reason some RINOs get elected is because they win GOP primaries.  If you want to replace the RINOs with conservatives, you need to convince more GOP primary voters to vote for conservatives over RINOs.  Of course, some GOP voters -- more so in some states than others -- aren't conservatives, so they're probably not going to do that.  And some GOP voters place a higher priority on things like likability or character than they do on ideology, so you may have a hard time convincing them as well.

If we could magically replace all those non-conservative GOP voters with conservative GOP voters, that would solve the problem.  Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible.

So in other words, the agenda - the various planks of the GOP - mean absolutely nothing.

[roamer_1]

Well, I suppose that it does.  (I referred to it as human nature, not necessarily a positive aspect of it.)

Over the years I spent a fair amount of my time, energy, and dollars trying to get conservative candidates through the primary process.  Some of our defeats (by two orders of magnitude in the tallied votes) were certainly depressing.  Always the toughest when the "RINO" opponent is the incumbent.

As Major Bill notes, not all of the Republican primary voters will prefer the more conservative candidate, but sometimes I think that they could have been swayed if they at least knew the name of our guy/gal before the got the ballot....

That's right. But that has been so my whole life long. @EdJames . What is supposed to unite us is a common banner - an agenda that we believe in. That is not what we get, ever. Not a single gain, in my entire life, most of which was spent supporting and pulling for the big red 'R".

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
What an incredible waste of time.

[rustynail]

JUST IN: Senate leaves for five-week recess (link: http://hill.cm/8FqDocM) hill

[roamer_1]

My understanding is that @roamer_1 does vote in the GOP primary for conservatives, and will vote for them in the general election if they win the primary.  So he hasn't abandoned the process.

A wee correction @Maj. Bill Martin ...
I will vote for any conservative, regardless of the brand, primary or otherwise.
In effect, the only time pragmatism or popularity enter into it for me is if a Conservative has a decidedly more popular chance than another conservative, wherein I will adjust my preference and get on board with the more likely victor.

My voting may tend to look Republican in the primary, but only to the point that Conservatives tend to be Republicans... and in that smaller factions do not have primaries.

The sum of that would be that I will certainly vote for a Republican Conservative over an independent or say, Constitution party Conservative, to ride a better bet they will get elected - But only where the two are near equal - Both being actual Conservatives.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I rest my case - your vote is only a positive affirmation.

The only "affirmation" is that they aren't as shitty as the candidate of the other party against whom you are running in the general election.  And generally, I'd say that a RINO is better than, say, Elizabeth Warren.  You may disagree.  Also, incumbents -- including RINOs -- are all very well away that just because they won one primary, and one general election, doesn't mean they are immune from being tossed out next time.  Most know that their win was opponent-dependent, and if the opponent changes to someone the voters like better, they'll lose.

So in other words, the agenda - the various planks of the GOP - mean absolutely nothing.

Are you talking about "the platform"?

If so, I don't think it is quite meaningless - it is often a basic statement of where the center of that party actually lies.  It is useful to compare the platform of one party against the platform of the other as general guidance.  But not every individual candidate is going to be fully supportive of every single thing in a platform.  So, it isn't binding, and it isn't a guarantee of what will be accomplished.  Exactly how much use it is...probably very little.

[roamer_1]

The only "affirmation" is that they aren't as shitty as the candidate of the other party against whom you are running in the general election.  And generally, I'd say that a RINO is better than, say, Elizabeth Warren.  You may disagree.  Also, incumbents -- including RINOs -- are all very well away that just because they won one primary, and one general election, doesn't mean they are immune from being tossed out next time.  Most know that their win was opponent-dependent, and if the opponent changes to someone the voters like better, they'll lose.

Nah - Once in, an incumbent is likely to stay. for decades.

And I would rather burn the damn 'big tent' down and suffer an Elizabeth Warren in order to throw the bastards out and bring in a crop that will actually DO something next time around.

Liberalism is winning because it has no opposition.

Are you talking about "the platform"?

If so, I don't think it is meaningless - it is often a basic statement of where the center of that party actually lies.  So it is useful to compare the platform of one party against the platform of the other as general guidance.  But not every individual candidate is going to be fully supportive of every single thing in a platform.

In fact, the party is not fully supportive of that platform - Not supportive AT ALL, having never in my life actually made a win - an actual gain. Not ONE. Liberals are dashing for their finish line, with huge gain over huge gain, and Republicans are jogging along, always and forever adjusting leftward.

Since I began voting in '80 to this day, Republican failure is so predictable that it can not possibly be mere incompetence. It is collusion...

[DCPatriot]

You've lost me.  I have no idea what that statement has to do with the meaning you personally attach to votes cast by other people, which is what we were discussing.  Nobody asks the meaning behind a particular vote when it is counted.  It counts exactly the same regardless of why someone cast it for a particular candidate.

He refuses to yield to your excellent point...as he had with the 'Binary Choice' POV.

Doesn't matter how much you love or hate the guy...it's only the number of votes that will determine who leads the Republic.

Anybody who stoops to a GOP Purity test and withholds their ballot (or wastes it as a protest) is aiding and abetting the other side.

And nobody is going to tell me this scientist here is 'that' dense.  No way. 

 

roamer       DC                            That's right @txradioguy  I'm committing violence on somebody who disagrees with me.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Nah - Once in, an incumbent is likely to stay. for decades.

And I would rather burn the damn 'big tent' down and suffer an Elizabeth Warren in order to throw the bastards out and bring in a crop that will actually DO something next time around.
Liberalism is winning because it has no opposition.

Okay, let's say the GOP fell apart.  What percentage of the electorate do you think would sign on to a more conservative party?

[roamer_1]

Anybody who stoops to a GOP Purity test and withholds their ballot (or wastes it as a protest) is aiding and abetting the other side.

@DCPatriot
That ol score has been around so long, and the impurity is so great that y'all ARE the other side, right along with the other side.

The whole thing is a bullcrap sport, with nothing there but jerseys and ball caps.

Y'all are happily eating a multi-trillion dollar increase for nothing other than a chance to poke the other side in the eye. Big government  - y'all just think you can do it better than the dems.
 

[libertybele]

Geez ....people ... as Ted said "Vote your conscience"!!!