This is a basic question. Would you consider voting for the Republican nominee for president under any conceivable circumstances?
This is a more complicated question. How far back in time do you need to go to find an election in which, if you were alive at the time, you would have voted for the Republican nominee?
Finally, would you consider wasting your vote on a protest candidate or simply staying home and not casting your vote at all?
The reason that I ask these questions is because we tend to focus a lot on the personalities of candidates, and somewhat less so on their proposed policies, but most of us are going to vote for one party or the other regardless of these kinds of details. Yet, I think in the past, our votes were more up for grabs.
The last time a Republican might have gotten my vote was 1952. In 1912, I would have voted for Roosevelt. In 1916, I might have have refused to participate. I don’t know what the hell I would have done if faced with a choice between McKinley and Bryan. I probably would have put my head in the wood-burning stove.
I would have voted for Lincoln. In 1912, I would have voted for Debs.
Well, considering I was only 16 at the time I couldn’t have voted but in 2000 I would have gone with Bush. Native Texan here so I was drinking the coolaid for sure. If I go back in time with what I know now? I wouldn’t have voted for the GOP all the way back to Ike.
But, in real time, on any given election I didn’t really subscribe to any one party since I didn’t know more than the personalities of the candidates.
Now – nope. Not possible.
Probably have to go back to TR.
Would you consider voting for the Republican nominee for president under any conceivable circumstances?
Yes. If I were insane, delusional, homicidal or suicidal, I might consider voting Republican. If I was also a masochist that wanted to watch the world and this country burn, then I would vote Republican
How far back in time do you need to go to find an election in which, if you were alive at the time, you would have voted for the Republican nominee?
I have a grudging respect for President Bush I, President Eisenhower, and hell, even President Nixon did some good things. But in each of their elections, I would have never voted for them. I really would have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. I would have happily voted Republican then, because I would have been voting for a Progressive.
Would you consider wasting your vote on a protest candidate or simply staying home and not casting your vote at all?
Never. Because I am not a selfish, petulant child wanting my pony.
I might have voted for Pappy Bush if he had been the nominee in 1980 instead of Reagan. But since that time, voting for republicans is voting for tearing my country apart and I wouldn’t do it for a $million.
No, I would not even consider voting for a GOP nominee. The policy positions of the GOP are totally untenable. I already got way too much GOP governance at the state and local government levels. Another thing to remember is if we elect a GOP President then the pace of the Alec created legislation is really going to accelerate and the Overton Window will skew even further faster right.
The last time I was really okay with a GOP President was 1952 or 1956, but I remember the discussions in elementary school and my allegiances were already with the Democrats. Been there ever since. As a long ago history major, my heroes were the Roosevelts and the New Deal, both of whom/which are largely despised by not a few of my relatives, although each and everyone of them, with no exceptions, benefited from both. Teddy and Lincoln are the only other two Republican candidates I might have voted for.
I would not consider voting for a protest candidate in the general nor would I sit out a general election.
1864. Except I couldn’t…
This current crop?
Hell no.
Only Republicans that I would have remotely given the time of day are Teddy Roosevelt and Ike.
Not one other one in the 20th Century
It is hard for me to go back farther than the 1940s on a casual answer. But from 1944 onward I can say that I would have voted for the eventual Democratic candidate every time. That is not to say they would have been my choice in the primaries. I would not have engaged in protest voting in any year.
I know my mom voted Independent in 1980 and my Dad went party line. I am left of the Democratic party on a lot of subjects but that means I don’t have a lot of choice in my voting on Nov 4th. I do get to exercise more options in the Primaries.
“I don’t know what the hell I would have done if faced with a choice between McKinley and Bryan. I probably would have put my head in the wood-burning stove.”
I have a generalized understanding (can’t find the stats for it right now) that suicide rates were awfully high at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, so you would have had lots of company.
I remember learning this in part by how many major league professional baseball players committed suicide during that era:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/suicides_baseball.shtml
As you can see, it’s slowed down lately. Forgot that Mike Flanagan took his own life; that struck me at the time. He was a public figure even after his playing day; had the air of a raconteur.
Sticking your head in a wood-burning stove, unpleasant as it sounds, seems a more pleasant way to go than “ingesting carbolic acid,” an apparently popular method in the early 20th century. Yikes…
Oh, and no, no Republican President in my lifetime could have gotten my vote, before or after I was of voting age. Eisenhower was before my time and he seems like he was more decent on policy, but Stevenson probably would have gotten my vote- I’m pretty lefty.
Some are mentioning Teddy R.- I might have favored him over Wilson, given his platform in the 1912 campaign. But he running as the candidate of his Progressive Party that year, as Taft beat him out for the GOP nomination.
I probably would have hit the X for Roosevelt in 1904 over Parker. Teddy was not as liberal in ’04 as he became later, but Parker sounds not to my liking. It’s amusing that Parker’s Wikipedia page defines him as having won the Democratic Party POTUS nomination over “liberal publisher William Randolph Hearst”. I don’t identify Hearst’s publications as dependably liberal, that’s for sure.
Promised myself a couple of decades ago to never in this lifetime vote GOP for any office.
Back in time, TR would be the most recent.
Repeat the Ralph Nader fiasco – no way.
Back when I lived in TX, sometimes the Dems would not bother to field a candidate for Texas Railroad Commission or state supreme court or whatever, in which case I would vote either Green or Libertarian just to vote against the GOP. Never vote 3rd party if a Dem in the race, though.
Under any circumstances? Of course there are circumstances where I’d vote for a Republican. Mostly circumstances involving a major realignment in our politics, but those are possible circumstances. Even with current alignments, I could see a situation where we were involved in a nasty war the Democrat wanted to continue and the Republican wanted to end, and where a strong Democratic Congress would prevent domestic disaster. Unlikely, but possible.
Historically, I’d agree with you, Boo, although I’d point out that in 1912 Roosevelt was technically running as a Progressive and so the last time I’d have voted for a Republican would be Roosevelt in 1904. I assume you’d be the same.
I would have seriously considered supporting Dewey or Eisenhower, although I think in the end I’d still have supported Truman and Stevenson, mostly because of how monstrous the Congressional Republicans were even then.
3. The only time I’ve voted non-D for prez or come close to voting R was my vote for former R turned Indy John Anderson in 1980. I must have been a) young and b) really ticked at Carter.
Fortunately for my peace of mind, my vote in CA for Anderson made no impact either on the state outcome (heavily pro Regun) or the national PV.
Later I would learn I was in good company: Jackie Kennedy and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. also voted for JA that year.
Would you consider voting for the Republican nominee for president under any conceivable circumstances?
It’s hard to imagine any realistic circumstances in which I’d vote for the Republican nominee. Even in the unlikely event the candidate was better, I’d want to keep the party out of power. Perhaps if a Democrat who was intent on starting a disastrous war with Iran was the nominee.
How far back in time do you need to go to find an election in which, if you were alive at the time, you would have voted for the Republican nominee?
I couldn’t stand the elder George Bush at the time, but in retrospect he doesn’t seem as bad as I thought. I still wouldn’t have voted for him.
Would you consider wasting your vote on a protest candidate or simply staying home and not casting your vote at all?
You word the question in a leading manner. You should have asked “Would you consider <casting> your vote on a protest candidate. ..”
There was a time I might have said yes. I live in California, the Democrat is going to win my state no matter what I do, so why not vote for Green party if only to signal some people are interested in a more left leaning option? I wouldn’t necessarily call that a waste. But after the debacle with Nader, no, not even as a protest vote. Given our ridiculous electoral system, third parties are sadly counter-productive.
No, I very deliberately chose the word “wasting” because a protest candidate is just that.
If your vote is for something, that’s different.
Yeah, of course I’d consider it. I imagine that it’s fairly likely I’ll be voting Republican after Wall Street takes over the Democratic Party between now and 2020, depending on whether progressives can figure out a populist alliance with the anti-corporate wing of the tea party. Realignments make for strange bedfellows.
The last Republican candidate for President I’d have voted for? I think more highly of Adlai than of Ike, so that’s out. I may have voted for Hoover over Al Smith. I would have voted for Taft over TR in 1912 due to TR’s warmongering, but Taft over Wilson would have been a tough choice, even with Wilson’s many warts. TR over Bryan would have been a no-brainer, though.
I did once vote for a Republican. State Controller. The choice seemed to be between a Republican with a record for decency, honesty, and competence and a Democrat that to be charitable was slimey. The Democrat won.
Only time I was tempted to vote for a Republican. However, if I knew than what I know now, would have been tempted to vote for GHW Bush in 1992, but it would have been more authentic for me to vote for James Warren on the Socialist ticket.
Might that slimy California Democrat have been Steve Westly? I’d agree with that perception.
No. It was back in the 1970s. And it’s possible that if I had the same facts before me today, the Democratic candidate might not seem as sleazy to me as he did back then.
The problem with Westly is that he’s a venture capitalist and that put him in within the ranks of the “new Democrats” and away from his earliest political jobs working for Leo Ryan and the Carter Admin. My visceral response to all the “new Democrats” is that they make my skin crawl.
Westly is considering running for Governor in 2018. We’ll just have to beat him again. I can think of a half-dozen Dems I’d support before him. The tech industry and venture capitalists are trying to insinuate themselves into the CDP and get their libertarian desires prioritized. We need to beat that back too.
Poor Bill. He was what he was, did what he felt he had to do to win and govern. But the liberal left and Dem Pty sucked back then, and there was still a conservative trend line in the country coming out of Reagan.
I never got over Poppy’s disgusting demonization of Dukakis and liberals, thanks to Lee Atwater, in 1988, and so barely followed his presidency in rt. Only later did I learn he’d early on agreed w/Gorbachev not to expand Nato further east, and generally he avoided boasting about the US beating the Soviets in the Cold War. But come the 92 election cycle, he began talking up how great the US was in beating the Soviets in the CW.
Poppy looks good to some liberals today, imo, largely because he got in and out of Iraq quickly, unlike his dumb son, and got in and out of the presidency quickly, unlike his dumb election-stealing son.
Why in retrospect I could consider GH Bush in 1992 isn’t for what he could/would have done but for what wouldn’t have been done. Speculative on my part because he’d launched to major invasions in his first term and likely had the impulse to do more of that.
Publicly he had three remaining items on this agenda: NAFTA, capital gains tax cut, and flag burning amendment. The last was just political rhetoric that he pulled out for himself along with his thousand points of light. The other two, the public and most Democratic politicians opposed. If the 1992 election results for Congress were the same and Bush narrowly won re-election, would there have been Newt’s revolution in 1994? Probably not because the most effective advertising component in those congressional elections were “morph” ads — the DEM incumbent/candidate’s face morphing into Clinton. The relatively minor congressional financial scandals would have been matched by the revelations of Bush admin financial scandals (the most scandal plagued admin based on number of official indicted was Reagan’s).
Without a GOP takeover of Congress — NAFTA and capital gains tax cuts wouldn’t have passed. And maybe, just maybe, in 2006 Democrats would have nominated a qualified, competent candidate that could run an effective campaign and was “clean.”
When I was at Michigan State, Mark Grebner (who apparently is still a local political legend) published a voter’s guide. In it he recommended a straight Democratic ticket except for one race: county treasurer. Grebner wrote that the memorably-named Democratic incumbent Lingg Brewer “had trouble distinguishing between public and private funds.”
1. No way they are all crazy or act it to get their base to vote for them.
2.I voted for Reagan first term– Young and stupid.
I would of voted for TR.
3. No protest voting or staying home. That is the same as voting for the TPGOP.
To my eternal shame, I voted for Nader in 2000.
Never again. That was a horrific object lesson in voting for the lesser evil means it’s the LESSER evil, not that it’s still evil.
as the current GOP is constituted it is inconceivable that I’d vote for a republican. I’d vote for Cthulhu first.
And I DO think that word means what I think it does.
Would you consider voting for the Republican nominee for president under any conceivable circumstances?
No.
This is a more complicated question. How far back in time do you need to go to find an election in which, if you were alive at the time, you would have voted for the Republican nominee?
1904 – TR.
I have voted for a fair number of Republicans, including Stafford and Jeffords for Senate. But they were Vermont Republicans…
Finally, would you consider wasting your vote on a protest candidate or simply staying home and not casting your vote at all?
I haven’t voted in some Florida Primaries. I would never miss a general election.
I can recall being tempted to vote for Colin Powell if he had been nominated, however unlikely, just to have voted for a black candidate in my lifetime. This aspiration has been much better satisfied more recently.
All things between two candidates being equal (a fantasy standard), an affirmative action vote would be appropriate. Otherwise, it’s making a poor or uninformed decision based on race, gender, sexual orientation.
Colin Powell had demonstrated that he was a toady way back in the late sixties. He was unacceptable person and also had neither the skill nor government experience skill sets to be POTUS. Odd that it took his assistance lying this country into a debacle in Iraq for so many to begin to see who and what Powell had always been.
Yes but that was information only a few informed people, inclined to the left, would have known about. Internet in its infancy, consortium news.com read by only a few. Powell had the MSM eating out of his hands.
Clinton feared him the most in 1995 of any potential challengers, and breathed a sigh of relief when he declined to run. The black Ike. Would have been a much tougher race for Clinton, and probably he would have had to go negative and bring up My Lai.
Why would informing the public of Powell’s cover-up role in the My Lai massacre be equated with “going negative?”
Adults are able to deal with the truth regardless of how ugly it is. Depresses me to no end that Americans act like children incapable of being informed.
Clinton was probably slicker back in 2006 in playing the race card than he was in 2008. Plus the money boys were satisfied that Clinton could deliver anything Powell or Dole would do, but do it better. Clinton effectively shutdown the economic liberal faction/critique of his administration while he and the GOP congress proceeded to gut substructure New Deal financial regulation. Obama has been similarly effective in silencing the anti-war Democrats/liberals.
Amen. There’s a stubborn wilfulness about this perpetual ignorance with which generations of marketers, politicians and evangelists have lined their pockets and corrupted our political process.
One is tempted to suggest we need to learn new ways of dealing with it. Is this what the decline of Rome seemed like to the dissenting participants?
You seem to be equating negative strictly with false. I’ve always been w/Paul Begala that negative can be good, is often necessary, when it deals with facts about the opponent the other side would rather not deal with. It was in that broader sense I used the term.
You’re talking to a truth-oriented guy, much more so than you probably realize.
Of course, since Powell in 95-6 was considered by the establishment as the Greatest Person to Walk on Water since Christ himself, Clinton would have had to have a carefully laid out strategy, with research backed up the wazoo, to make those claims about Powell stick.
It’s pretty obvious that Powell had a celluloid rat’s chance in Hell of nomination but that wasn’t so apparent at the time; the KKK revival hadn’t yet publicly hollowed out the core of the party of Lincoln.
That it was a probably a poor or uninformed choice under the circumstances; but in a post-Soviet world one was tempted to admire the practical application of the “Powell Doctrine”.
That the US had prudently conducted itself in the first Gulf War with an apparently appropriate balance of force versus outcomes makes the subsequent disaster of Iraq all the more unforgivable. Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during this period; the youngest appointee to that position ever. Just sayin’.
It seemed to me the Bush administration used him unmercifully in the Iraq run-up. I could be wrong.
If the Gulf War had been an appropriate use of US military force, why did the administration lie us into that one as well?
Odd that Americans remain so incurious or unaware of the fact that Noriega and Saddam were BFF with Bush and/or the GOP. Since when is it acceptable one party to a long term and close friend, to respond to a falling out by blowing away the former friend? And in the case of Bush, stick the USG with a huge bill for his lack of diplomatic skills.
Of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait.
Were all the facts in the dispute(s) between Iraq and Kuwait aired for the US public? Was Kuwait really slant drilling into Iraq oil fields? Did Glaspie signal to Saddam that the US was indifferent to how he and the Kuwaiti leaders resolved their disputes?
None of that was disclosed. Instead we got imaginary armies massing on the KSA border and imaginary Kuwaiti babies in imaginary incubators being tossed out to die by imaginary soldiers. And claptrap about the “fourth large military force on the planet” that we somehow came to accept that we had a duty to destroy.
But Iraqi military units rolled into Kuwait; whatever the machinations, understatements, misunderstandings, provocations or deceptions there had to be an unambiguous and overwhelming response or our Persian Gulf geopolitical strategy at the time would have quickly unravelled.
That the American public were not ‘told’ elides the fact that modest investigation, as with most of our popular mythology du jour, dispels the narrative and produces a more nuanced understanding. But it was ever thus, no?
If invading Iraq in the first Gulf War was the worst of our geopolitical oversteps in the last three decades we could probably live with it.
But Iraqi military units rolled into Kuwait;
And that’s our problem? (Recall Saddam wasn’t on the US shit list at that time.)
As far as how far back in time, 1952 sounds about right for the reasons that my parents likely voted for Eisenhower (and ignored Nixon who they disliked).
What would have to change for me to consider voting Republican? The Republican Party would have to re-cast the Southern strategy into populist progressive policies than include everyone and stand for strict separation of chuch and state. And they would have to nominate a candidate who was candid, well-informed, articulate, and authentically understanding the fact that he worked for the ordinary people, not the donors. That also means that he had convinced the donors that his working for the ordinary people was ultimately to their advantage as well.
Needless to say, I don’t see that happening with Republicans and it’s questionable whether Democrats could still pull it off.
What to do instead if neither party has a candidate worth voting for in a “choose your disaster” sort of way? That’s a tough one. In 1968, I ducked it. I was starting graduate school. I had been through a pre-induction physical and was in a lower category than 1-A. The war in Vietnam was the most salient item, and both candidates in my view flunked the test. Moreover Hubert Humphrey was silent as the Chicago Police turn there suppressive force on protesters seeking an “End the war” plank in the Democratic platform or immediate cessation of the war (depending on which group you are talking about). The futility of normal politics could discourage me from voting again.
I would not put my head in the wood-burning stove. I would think about what political action was still possible and effective outside of the broken electoral system. In the McKinley-Bryan era that likely would have been some faction of the labor movement.
Warts and all, including everything we know now and didn’t know then, LBJ and HHH were far better for the country than Goldwater would have been and Nixon was. (Remember — more than a third of the US casualties in Vietnam happened after 1968). If HHH had ended it quickly, the subsequent disaster in Cambodia may not have happened — and there was no reason why a peaceful transition couldn’t have happened in S. Vietnam.
Humphrey undoubtedly would have ended it rather quickly, much faster than Tricky did. Recall he was against Johnson’s escalation in Feb 1965, put his views in writing in fact. He had to toe the line thereafter in order to keep Lyndon from going completely postal on him.
Futile discussing a Goldwater presidency as no Repub was going to oust the incumbent Dem so soon after the assassination.
Well I probably considered putting my head in the wood-burning stove in 1968. Brutal year, especially in politics. Those of you too young or who weren’t born — you have no idea how bad it was, how dispiriting.
But as I recall reading somewhere, Hubert alluded to the battle in the streets of Chicago in his acceptance speech, but it was just a call to end the violence, and could be interpreted either way. A few days/weeks after the convention, again iirc, Humphrey sided clearly with the police.
The only major pols who came off well during that convention as morally decent people, were probably McGovern and his surrogate Abe Ribicoff. McCarthy did concern himself with how the student protesters were being treated but dissipated his effectiveness with some quirky calls for a “govt in exile” and as he failed to show on stage with Humphrey as a show of party unity.
No takers on 1944, if we knew more how sick FDR was? The bad precedent of running for 4 terms, one more than is probably what the system should accommodate, avoiding the resulting constitutional amendment limiting it to too few terms. Dewey was from the moderate wing of the party, and probably couldn’t have done much to undo the ND.
How about 1976 — a few more liberals (in NY) staying home (and one more state?) would have given Jerry Ford a full term, but possibly not given us Reagan 4 yrs later. Not sure though who would have run that year, but the field would have been crowded. Probably Ted K too.
Reagan would still have been the 1980 nominee regardless of the outcome of the ’76 election.
Dewey in ’44? In the middle of a major war in two theaters that were going well? Surely you jest.
Yes Reagan in 1980 nominee, but very possible he wouldn’t have faced such a weak opponent as Carter. And the Repubs would have had to deal with the Iran hostage situation.
Of course, they might have cooked up the same behind-the-scenes deal as they did — October Surprise — in 1980, only with the climax occurring just before the election.
1944 — no, I’m not arguing for it, just throwing it out there as a possibility, only with the fuller public knowledge that FDR was near death. Do you think a Repub admin coming to office in Jan 45, with allied victory only a matter of time, would suddenly turn tail and call the troops back home? Ridiculous. They would never be elected to higher office again, the party would cease to exist, to quote Ike.
iirc, Ford would have been eligible to run for re-election in 1980. So, flip on my part to say that Reagan would have been the nominee.
If Ford had won, there may not have been a Tehran hostage situation. Don’t know what would have developed in Iran — although doubt that Ford’s team (Rummy and Cheney with Dr. K on the side) was much different from Carter’s Zbig.
Not just the war but FDR’s team was working up policy plans for the peace. No way would Vets have been treated well, or anywhere near as well, under a Dewey Admin. Truman did some things in that arena very well, some not so well, and some were misguided. Overall, probably not as well as FDR would have done. Decommissioning the Pentagon as planned with have been a major change in the post WWII period.
Was about re-electing the administration which had, so far, successfully prosecuted the war.
Quite so, but I’m allowing for a scenario where the public is better informed of his grave illness. Had that been the case, and given how bad it was for the last year of his life, it’s even possible the party could have persuaded him to hand over the reins at the convention.
Some fascinating questions arise; Roosevelt arguably misapprehended Stalin’s treachery yet his apparent willingness to treat with Mao’s nascent revolution may have avoided many lost opportunities later if it had been pursued.
I have not voted for any Republican in 42 years of voting, and never expect to.
The only way I’d vote anything but Democratic would be if Lyndon La’ Rouche was the Democratic nominee.
Let’s deal with your larger point first, which is that people vote party affiliation to the very, very nearly total disregard of individual candidates.
Elections are not “swung” by any mass of unaffiliated or loosely-affiliated voters who vote now for this party and now for that. They are swung by affiliated, but momentarily demotivated, voters sitting home.
Corollary: the semantic of sitting home is indifference to the outcome, i.e. any outcome is equally acceptable. (I do not say that this is a valid perspective, only that it is the “meaning” of non-voting.)
Corollary to corollary: every election is a landslide, because every non-voter voted (in effect) for the winner.
Back to your illustrative question. I cast my first vote for Gerald Ford in 1976. Compared with Jimmy Carter, I judged Ford to be the lesser of two demagogues. I do not retract that judgment today. The lesser-of-two-demagogues touchstone is still sometimes useful; but, as you say, it has also become impossible, in conscience, to ever consider voting for any Republican. It has gone beyond mere and expectable demagoguery and tipped over into incitement — which can never be tolerated, in any form, in any amount.
Tactical voting is a piece of posturing.
I believe George McGovern had a similar take on the ’76 election choices, and voted accordingly.
In a first past the post election, voting third (or fourth, etc.) party is also a vote (in effect) for the winner.
Lincoln, Roosevelt (1912) & Ike (1952) —–> I believe it’s time for the return of the Whig Party!
There is no way I could vote for a republican. A protest candidate like the Greens? Kidding right?
How far back would I have to go to find an acceptable republican? Considering my family came from the docks and factories, forever. Never have, never will and never could. Lincoln is a maybe.
I increasingly think I will not vote since I live in such a fucking red state and Hillary gives me white knuckles.
If the Democratic candidate was really awful, and the Republican candidate was a true moderate, then I could see myself voting against a D in favor of an R…but it would have to be a major difference like Lieberman vs. Huntsman.
Sounds like a stay at home.
Present day: Hell, Booman, I can’t even conceivably vote for some of the Dem presidential candidates.
Historically: Teddy Roosevelt. No, wait, not even then. I would’ve voted for Debs. Um, Abraham Lincoln, but only in 1860. In 1864 he joined with Andrew Johnson, which — at least in hindsight — was a huge mistake. Lincoln won the Civil War, but Johnson (intentionally) lost the Reconstruction.
1952 for me too. I was six at the time. I got over it pretty quickly.
Not Bush, Not Bush (I), Not Reagan, Not Ford, Not Nixon, maybe Eisenhower. Before then I don’t know the candidates well enough.
Currently there is *no* Republican who I would *ever* consider voting for.
vote for a republican? not as long as they’re the confederate party.
but i’ll stay home in a heartbeat. i’m in seattle & my state is a certain lock for D.
no interest in raising money or cheerleading for dixiecrats like hillary. i’ll just be sitting over here praying she doesn’t start too many wars or ruin too much of the Obama improvements.
I might have preferred Nixon over Kennedy. Otherwise probably when the Democrats were the scummy racists.
In 1976 I voted for Gerald Ford, largely because I distrusted Jimmy Carter’s Southern Baptist roots and found Ford to be a decent enough fellow, having the self-deprecation to have appeared on Saturday Night Live despite Chevy Chase having tirelessly poked fun of his clumsiness. That is the only time I’ve ever voted for a Republican, and I can’t say that I regret having cast that vote.
Yes, presuming some major realignment that doesn’t seem likely in the near term.
I probably would have been a solid GOP progressive from Lincoln to Hoover. 3/4 of a million dead – and some pretty horrible stuff on-going down south.
No – I would under count the office and vote the other elections. Generally I don’t vote 3rd party unless there is no D on the ballot.
Only Republicans of yore [Lincoln, Roosevelt maybe], these days would never vote against a dem for prez or senate, nor would I stay home, since I’m big on making voting easier and increasing voter turnout. I have voted against local dems for other local dems since I’m in Hudson County NJ and that means voting for the peoples front of Judea against the Judean peoples front [ht, Life of Brian]
local elections sometimes write in
Conceivable, yes. Plausible, no.
I can’t imagine that any republican who could get nominated by a majority of republican primary voters would ever be able to win my vote.
I did throw my vote away on a third-party protest in 2000 and the only reason I can still live with myself is I don’t live in Florida. I learned the lesson painfully and it’s hard to imagine that I would ever do such a thing again, short of the democratic nominee literally heiling hitler the night before the election or something.