User Tag List

View Poll Results: I...

36. You may not vote on this poll
  • have changed allegiances

    12 33.33%
  • have not

    15 41.67%
  • am not American

    9 25.00%
123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 106

  1. #1
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007

    Default Americans, how many of you now vote for the other side?

    I'm curious to know, particularly with regards to Republicans vs Democrats, how many of you have changed allegiance in your lifetime. ie You used to support the Democrats but now support the Republicans, or vice versa.

  2. #2


    I used to vote mixed, voting for getting a lot of Republicans into office, both local and national. But I block voted for Democrats last election.

    I do not have a party affiliation, however.

    I dislike the Democratic Party, and have a disdain for them, but the current Republican Party makes me want to swear and throw things.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #3
    Temporal Mechanic. Lexicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    5w6 sp/sx


    @JivinJeffJones - you forgot to add this option to your poll:

    "I'm a terrible citizen & can't be bothered to give a damn either way"

    (*raises hand*)
    03/23 06:06:58 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:06:59 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:21:34 Nancynobullets: LEXXX *sacrifices a first born*
    03/23 06:21:53 Nancynobullets: We summon yooouuu
    03/23 06:29:07 Lexicon: I was sleeping!

    04/25 04:20:35 Patches: Don't listen to lex. She wants to birth a litter of kittens. She doesnt get to decide whats creepy

    02/16 23:49:38 ygolo: Lex is afk
    02/16 23:49:45 Cimarron: she's doing drugs with Jack

    03/05 19:27:41 Time: You can't make chat morbid. Lex does it naturally.

  4. #4
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008


    I have switched sides on many political issues over the years largely due to me going from neocon (I mean REAL neocon) to localist/traditional/liberal/conservative, but have never even come close to supporting a democrat. There have been a few Dems I appreciate when it comes to civil rights and foreign affairs like Ron Wyden and Dennis Kucinich. But, really it seems to me there are far fewer democrats who are willing to stand up to their awful leadership. The republicans have awful leadership, too, but at least I can identify with the goals of some of the insurgents even if none of them really represent my own political philosophy. Actually I'm not sure there's anyone in congress who I would say is representative of my political philosophy. Sen. Jim Demint might have been close, but he's not as big on being anti-war and pro-civil liberties. The former I was aware that he was moving more in my direction, but I'm not sure I have much hope on the latter as the Heritage Foundation where he's president came out against the Amash amendment to defund the NSA.

    I do have interest in folks who are trying to forge a third way (a real third way not just a marketing attempt to get moderates to come over to one side). I think Mark T. Mitchell's the Politics of Grattitude represent my own concern about the parties.

    The political landscape is dominated by “liberals” and “conservatives” who often seem both illiberal and downright hostile to conserving much of anything. For instance, the word “conservative” is used—indeed overused—to describe a political and cultural position as broad as it is nebulous. While most conservatives embrace some version of market capitalism and some limits on the size and scope of government, self-identified conservatives don’t agree on the substantive contents of the term. As a result, the word has become so elastic that it can be used to describe anything from a minimalist “night-watchman state” to so-called compassionate conservatism, which looks to government to facilitate, if not deliver, social services. Many who express an enthusiasm for foreign military adventures in the name of universal democracy call themselves conservative, but so do the relative few who support a restrained foreign policy that is skeptical of nation building. Evangelicals championing “family values” call themselves conservative as do business executives whose advertising campaigns seem hell-bent on undermining those same values. Is a concept that is so watered down that it can be credibly used to describe this range of views really worth much at all? Is the word itself worth conserving?
    Likewise, the concept of liberalism has undergone changes of its own, for initially it had little to do with a steadily expanding welfare state. Liberalism derives, etymologically, from the Latin liberalis, which means liberty. Liberalism is a relative newcomer on the political scene. For liberals, the primary political unit is the individual and the primary concern is individual liberty. Entailed in this is the notion that humans are beings with the capacity to choose. Liberalism, then, is the political school of thought that emphasizes the free choices of individuals. The language of human rights goes hand in hand with liberalism, for these rights refer primarily to the moral status of individuals. Along with the notion of human rights goes the idea of human equality: all humans equally possess certain rights. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all Men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” he was giving voice to concepts firmly rooted in the liberal tradition. In this sense a major strand—and perhaps the major strand—of the American founding stems from liberalism.
    At this point, an obvious problem emerges. According to this definition of liberalism, it seems that Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, are liberals. That is, they emphasize individual liberty, and political discourse is framed in terms of individual rights.
    But Republicans, when they hurl the word “liberal” as an epithet, are not accusing Democrats of their love of liberty and rights. Instead, they are suggesting several things depending on the context. If the subject at hand is fiscal policy, then liberalism means a propensity to increase taxes—especially on the wealthy—and to increase state spending on social programs. If the subject is defense, liberalism means antimilitarism and a propensity to coddle the enemy. In the area of sexual ethics, liberals are libertines who want to destroy the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and instead permit marriage between any two consenting adults. Liberals are pro-choice on abortion and against capital punishment. Liberals, so goes the rant, are soft on crime. They love the poor and resent the rich. They are convinced that global warming will destroy us all and that the state should take drastic measures to stop it. When “conservatives” call their opponents liberals they mean, at root, that they are irreligious god-haters or at least Unitarians. Liberals tend to drink pinot noir and concoctions with funny little umbrellas. In short, a liberal, in this colloquial sense, emphasizes expansive personal liberties and favors state solutions to social ills. The high rate of taxation and state intervention that makes the latter possible may, in fact, truncate the former, but that is beside the point.
    When Democrats hurl names at Republicans, words like “fundamentalist” and “warmonger” merge to create an image of a gun-toting, Bible-thumping radical, a sort of John Brown for our times. Because some Democrats believe that the so-called Christian Right, secretly or not, has designs on turning the United States into a Christian fundamentalist theocracy, the term “conservative” sometimes carries these connotations. At the very least it is used to designate a group of people who have a particular set of moral beliefs that they want to impose on the rest of society. Furthermore, conservatives tend to be selfish and unconcerned about the poor and the destitute. Conservatives are against capital gains taxes and for capital punishment. They oppose inheritance taxes, corporate taxes, and any kind of progressive taxes, which has the effect of funneling more money to the rich at the expense of social programs that help the poor, whom conservatives resent as shiftless drags on society. Conservatives, so goes the rant, are selfish partisans of big business who, at the same time, want to impose a strict morality on the rest of us. They see the natural world as a resource to be strip-mined and deny that human activities have anything to do with climate change. They also tend to be flag-waving jingoists who love war, thrive on militarism, and own at least one handgun. Conservatives tend not to read books; they watch NASCAR and drink beer from a can (unless they are Baptists in which case they drink Mountain Dew). Big business’s use of salacious themes in advertizing may not be compatible with the moralizing rhetoric of the culture warriors, but that is beside the point.
    Both of these descriptions are caricatures used by one group to discredit the other. And while they don’t get us far, they can give us some hints about what each side deems most dangerous. Those on the right are concerned about the libertinism and statism of the left, while those on the left worry about the moralism and social apathy of those on the right. Liberals want the right to be left alone in the bedroom, and they highlight the rights of the poor and disadvantaged. Conservatives demand the right to keep their own money and the freedom to raise their children in a decent society. Both generally recur to the language of individual rights to make their claims. In this sense, partisans on both the right and the left drink deeply of the well of liberalism.


    In this book, I want to explore an alternative that I call the politics of gratitude. It attempts to move beyond the timeworn liberal-conservative dichotomy that has reduced our political and cultural discourse to clichés, vitriol, and downright silliness. While this narrative will not be recognized as either liberal or conservative by the chief spokespersons of either camp, I would like to poach the word “conservative” for its etymological bounty. The word “conserve” comes from the Latin conservare, which is a verb meaning to watch over, preserve, and protect or to continue to dwell in. This term describes stewards, people who commit themselves to preserving the good things of this world. Together they dwell in their various places, watching over those places and the goods inherent therein as they tend them in trust for the next generation. Stewardship gives birth to acts of responsibility and care that are oriented toward the long-term preservation of the natural, cultural, and institutional goods we have inherited, even as it seeks to improve them in the process.
    This book attempts to develop an account of politics and culture rooted in gratitude and giving birth to responsible lives characterized by stewardship and a commitment to community. In the first half of the book, I discuss four concepts that are often neglected in our contemporary discourse but that are essential to a politics of gratitude. The four build upon one another and, hopefully, culminate in something that resembles coherence. They are as follows: (1) creatureliness, (2) gratitude, (3) human scale, and (4) place. In the second half, I employ these concepts in thinking about five different areas: (1) politics, (2) economics, (3) the natural world, (4) family, and (5) education. The outcome, perhaps already suspected, will be a political and cultural vision that is at once local, limited, modest, republican,* grateful, and green.
    In a climate of increasingly shrill and partisan debates, where the words “liberal” and “conservative” are used as terms of abuse, where important matters are torpedoed by special interests seeking to aggrandize their power, Americans are looking for a better way. They are seeking a political and cultural direction that is authentically different and not simply the retreads of shortsighted ideas born of partisan politics and failed ideologies. Fortunately, there is hope. Many, on both the left and the right, are coming to the conclusion that neither the conservatism of the Republicans nor the progressivism of the Democrats offers long-term solutions to the many challenges besetting us. This book does not attempt to beat the same old drum or the same old heads. What follows is an alternative political and cultural vision rooted in gratitude, common sense, and a deep affection for the sheer goodness of life.
    * By “republican” I mean a form of government based on regular elections and representation in the context of the rule of law.

    - See more at:
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #5
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    I'm curious to know, particularly with regards to Republicans vs Democrats, how many of you have changed allegiance in your lifetime. ie You used to support the Democrats but now support the Republicans, or vice versa.
    When I was younger (too young to vote - back in the mid-80's) I was nominally in support of Republicans, but that was a gentler time polarization-wise, I lived in a very conservative area, my friends were conservative, etc. Now I look back on a lot of decisions that elected officials made in those days and find them unwise, if not as tragic as more recent decisions go.

    But other than some smaller, more local offices, I've never actually voted for a Republican. I have voted for some independent candidates, but as far as the major offices go, I'm a pretty solid democratic voter -- but only in the lesser-of-two-evils sort of way. I live in a swing state (if not as swing-ish as it used to be, unfortunately), and with our "first past the pole" voting system votes for 3rd party candidates are basically identical to a vote for the greater-of-two-evils candidate. Ideologically, I'm much farther "left" than any mainstream (U.S.) position these days.

    Having said that, I would have been happy to vote for McCain in 2000 (but certainly never since). I found his stance on campaign finance reform appealing. Give me Eisenhower and I'd jump to vote Republican (thinking of generals, I'd likely have voted for Colin Powell too, pre-GWB).

    Like @ygolo said, the current state of the Democratic party sort of disgusts me. They're wishy-washy and can't really be counted upon to do much right. But they are infinitely preferable to today's Republicans. So unfortunately the Democratic candidates tend to get my votes by default.

  6. #6
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    4w5 sp/sx


    I was raised Republican and gradually drifted towards Democrat. My family is still Republican and are upset whenever they know me to be Democrat. My family are such sweet, gentle people, but when they talk politics they get really upset. The media triggers anxiety and fear, and my family all have issues with that. I have had to say I don't talk about it because in phone conversations they will say really horrible things about anything Democrat, but I have never said anything negative to them about Republicans. I will say that the entire system is flawed and can find some common ground there. I actually hate politics and the media because I see their personalities change when the topic comes up. I think people are deeply manipulated. I don't have any desire to change their view, but they feel a deep need to change mine. I don't want to change their views because it gives them commonality with the other people in their community and life. I want them to belong and feel happy and socially connected. It is interesting how uneasy they feel with me having different ideas. It makes them feel anxious.

    I'm not hardcore Democrat, but am actually further to the left. Last election I voted for the Green Party candidate.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    I've never switched allegiances. I am now and will always be conservative in my outlook.

    That being said, I have voted for Democrats. I voted for Obama in '08.

    The day he decided to put our fiscal issues on the back burner to pass liberal wet dream of healthcare reform instead, is the day I realized I never need to vote for a democrat again, at least for that office.

    He is just talking about the economy now... and he's been in office for something like 1400 days.

    I still reserve the right to cross the isle on smaller office elections, but the presidency just doesn't make sense to give back to the left after 4 years of having people like myself demonized from the bully pulpit.

    He's failed to accomplish pretty much any of his '08 campaign promises.

  8. #8
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    594 sx/sp
    LII Ne


    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    I'm curious to know, particularly with regards to Republicans vs Democrats, how many of you have changed allegiance in your lifetime. ie You used to support the Democrats but now support the Republicans, or vice versa.
    Raised Republican, taught that Dems were stupid and evil.

    Voted Dem in 2000.
    After Dubya's reelection, I switched parties to Dem officially.

    Can't say Dem is the best party (as opposed to a smaller, third-party group), but it's better than Repub for me.

    Note: I don't ever vote "straight party," I vote in each category for the best candidate IMO. Which can include Republican candidates.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007


    As a very young man I considered myself a 'radical moderate', and voted for Democrats as often as Republicans.....then I became better educated, and discovered that the Democratic party is opposed to most of what I have come to support (Constitutionally limited government, federalism, etc.). In over a decade, I've only voted for a Democrat in a general election twice.....both times out of gratitude for taking on the Cynthia McKinney machine in the Democratic primary.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    As far as looking forward, the reason Repubs are in the dumps right now is that we've had quite a good run since the 70's when liberals had finished squandering the political capital they earned in the wake of the great depression. I'm also of the opinion that WWII and the boom it catalyzed lengthened the amount of time the left held onto DC. Without WWII the left's engine would have probably run out of gas 10 or 15 years sooner, but that's all speculative at this point.

    Our philosophy (Conservative philosophy) has dominated DC for something like the last 30 - 40 years. Those ideas have run out of steam in a world that has passed them by. It's not to say that Reagan wasn't a great President, but that his policies made sense in light of the global conditions in the 1980's. Unfortunately, and every party does this, we've been too afraid to change our ideas when they've been working for so long. I'm already seeing rays of the future shining through in Rand Paul's foreign policy positions, and in Rubio's willingness to articulate immigration reform despite the pounding he's taken in the polls for it, and Amash's NSA amendment. These new policy directions are still quite nascent and will take time to gain traction with the party generally, but it will get dragged kicking and screaming in a new direction eventually (that process has already started). Libertarian populism is our future, it will just take a little while to get there.

    The interesting thing to me is that the left, with Obama's win in '08 seems to be trying to return to it's more liberal policies of yesteryear. I haven't seen much imagination in the lefts policy choices, but they probably don't think they need it because of the victories they've enjoyed.

    Why I'm not worried is that the Republicans in their heart of hearts know they need to change. It doesn't seem like the left realizes that they do yet.

    Given the changes in the world since the 30's, I think the cycle of change between the left and right being dominant is speeding up (24hr news cycle etc..). I'm curious to see how long it takes the right to turn the ship around given that it already looks like we are.

Similar Threads

  1. How many of you don't celebrate you birthdays?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 12:49 PM
  2. [ISTJ] ISTJs- How Many of you are sticklers for schedules?
    By IZthe411 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-31-2009, 12:32 AM
  3. How many of you don't have problems with nightmares?
    By Virtual ghost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 10:37 PM
  4. [SJ] SJs : how many of you are Okay with factory-job?
    By niki in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 12:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO