[WestRiverTraveler]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

The reasons you vote the way you do are irrelevant. You said it yourself - decent candidate, decent guy, but you refuse to vote for him because of his party. That’s the very problem with voters today.

Ok, dude. I’ve read your posts here for a few years. Can you see me rolling my eyes across from where you are sitting? I like the other candidate, too. Also a decent guy and good candidate. As a middle of the road voter, I can see positive and negative, but unless I have a REALLY good reason to vote for the R, I'm not doing it. At the end of the day, politicians fall in line with the party.


EDIT: If I were in MA, I would vote for Baker over Healey. Why? He has done enough to push back against the things I despise in the GOP. He's been willing alienate the a portion of the party on both this policies and things he has said. He can get my vote. I didn't get that from John and certainly don't get that from Bob.

[mdovell]

There's really no DINO or RINO here. Look there's not much for extreamism in New England. We can debate issues for the most part but we're arguing over more policy and not social. For example same sex marriage is the law of the land, mandated health care has been the law under obamacare (romney passed it in 2006). Diehl in Mass is practically losing on purpose. He's way too far to the right and now invoking religion when most of the state is passed that.

What are basic issues.

Inflation

Housing

Tax (mostly income and sales, property taxes are mostly local - ct is not NH)

Now there's some policies that frankly can create frustrations. For example Lamon is fooling around with educational requirements and it is getting hypocritical.

So he recognizes a teacher shortage by allow for people to substitute without a degree or license for a few months. Yet he is NOT allowing for virtual learning and mandates it's all in person. Ok well the problem then is longer school years since schools cannot staff to required levels and have closed several times this year so far. This also creates a false labor argument since many employers still want virtual or hybrid to be competitive. I've already heard from recent graduates that this is confusing. Then there's local control of education and yet neighboring states have had standardized tests for generations (MCAS and Regents). CT also doesn't take out of state licenses for teachers even though neighboring states do and the Praxis teaching test in CT is the same company NY uses. So this whole teacher shortage is largely state created by not accepting out of state, not accepting virtual days/work and eliminating the state wide test. There was better accountability when CT public schools had the test. At the same point one third of students in the state attend private schools, that is a very high percentage (I was just at the state meeting yesterday)

We also talk about diversity in hiring. Yet the standards in CT are different and look at incorporation rather than demographics. If a black owned business exists in say Sturbridge Ma or Yonkers NY they aren't counted as CHRO reporting because they aren't incorporated in CT. Incorporation can be in a PO box (see Delaware) so this makes little sense.

Meanwhile in more of the private sector we see so much moving or being bought out by others that it creates a lack of a sense of community and stability. When you have smaller locally owned businesses being the backbone of a community that aren't going to cut and run it means alot. Not not everyone or everything gets attention. yeah there's a defense contractor in my town that sells things to nasa but at the same point there's a slaughterhouse that sells meats locally. If they didn't exist it would be less of a reason to dine out as the quality would suffer. I also see a growing comedy scene and art scene but the media just doesn't cover it..

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by WestRiverTraveler

Ok, dude. I’ve read your posts here for a few years. Can you see me rolling my eyes across from where you are sitting? I like the other candidate, too. Also a decent guy and good candidate. As a middle of the road voter, I can see positive and negative, but unless I have a REALLY good reason to vote for the R, I'm not doing it. At the end of the day, politicians fall in line with the party.


EDIT: If I were in MA, I would vote for Baker over Healey. Why? He has done enough to push back against the things I despise in the GOP. He's been willing alienate the a portion of the party on both this policies and things he has said. He can get my vote. I didn't get that from John and certainly don't get that from Bob.

That’s the point, the Republican Party has NOT nominated any true outstanding candidates. They haven’t even nominated any mediocre ones. They’ve turned their backs on moderates and good leaders (Boughton, McKinney, Stewart, etc.) for far right extremists and those who blindly support an “evil overlord” cultist.

Look at Lenora Levy. Blumenthal could be vulnerable with a strong challenger but instead she can’t even raise enough money within Connecticut to run a decent campaign so she runs to worship the Evil Overlord at his House of Worship. Disgusting. That’s the sad state of Connecticut’s Republican Party. Jay

[FordBronco1967]

Originally Posted by WestRiverTraveler

I told him that I appreciated his campaign, but I'm not voting for him. He asked why not. I said, "you are running as an R. Can't vote for any Rs with current state of the party.

I will never understand this bigoted line of thinking! It is not any different than saying "You are black. I cannot vote for anyone that is black.".

I went through my sample ballot and looked at the policy positions of all the candidates running, and have chosen who I believe to be the best candidate for the job, given the choices I have been presented with. Most of those choices are Republicans, with a few Democrats (local). And, even though I am a Republican, I did not automatically preclude that the Democratic candidate would not receive my vote, simply because of the letter next to their name.

Voting for someone based on the letter next to their name is prevalent amongst voters in both parties, and it has to stop! We should have heeded President Washington's advice!

Originally Posted by JayCT

It kills me because there are issues like affordable housing, juvenile crime and police accountability that should be changed IMHO. I just can’t in good conscience vote for a party that has fallen so far here and especially nationally.

Jay, it sounds as though those issues are not of the utmost importance, to you. It sounds as though the way you perceive certain politicians matters more than actual policy. And, it presents a logical fallacy, as it assumes that the Democratic Party has not fallen, when, at least to me, both parties have fallen. They are, both, flirting with their fringe groups!

Now, I will admit, I know nothing about Connecticut's Republican and Democratic Parties. But, if Connecticut Republicans are offering solutions to problems you are concerned about, and Connecticut Democrats are not, this seems as though it should be an easy decision.

Personally, I do not judge politicians based on the party they affiliate with. I judge them based on their policy positions and actions. I try, sometimes even successfully , not to participate in hate-filled political divisiveness, and this is one way I try.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by WestRiverTraveler

I can see positive and negative, but unless I have a REALLY good reason to vote for the R, I'm not doing it.

Right - and that’s my point. If everyone stopped looking at party over person, we’d be much better off.

[WouldLoveTo]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Right - and that’s my point. If everyone stopped looking at party over person, we’d be much better off.

Can't agree with this enough! I've done this all my life, looked at the entire list, talked to who I could, and made my choices that way.

Does it occur to some of you that if you vote for a moderate it may eventually swing either party back to something resembling normalcy?

Some of the posts I see look like ones I saw when Obama first ran, or Hillary. "Oh I'm voting for Hillary because I think a woman president would be awesome!" That's not a good reason!

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by FordBronco1967

I will never understand this bigoted line of thinking! It is not any different than saying "You are black. I cannot vote for anyone that is black.". .

You don't understand the difference between discriminating against a racial minority and not voting for a political party? Hint: No one controls their race, ethnicity, or sexuality.

For me, Republicans have to renounce MAGA to be eligible for my vote-- not wink at it. Is it fair to put his extra burden on them? Sure-- They are choosing to associate themself with the party. But many Republicans-- like Bob-- want to play it both ways.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

You don't understand the difference between discriminating against a racial minority and not voting for a political party? Hint: No one controls their race, ethnicity, or sexuality.

For me, Republicans have to renounce MAGA to be eligible for my vote-- not wink at it. Is it fair to put his extra burden on them? Sure-- They are choosing to associate themself with the party. But many Republicans-- like Bob-- want to play it both ways.

Sort of like how Democrats say no, yet “wink” re police defunding, while strategically allowing it to occur. There’s a laundry list of ways Ds do the same as Rs, so let’s not pretend here.

Making excuses for a beloved party is just as bad as loyalty in the voting booth, IMO.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Sort of like how Democrats say no, yet “wink” re police defunding, while strategically allowing it to occur. There’s a laundry list of ways Ds do the same as Rs, so let’s not pretend here.

Making excuses for a beloved party is just as bad as loyalty in the voting booth, IMO.

Actually, no, nothing like that. You're creating a strawman argument.

You can tell yourself any story you'd like, but most Democrats are not for "defunding" the police. They are for police reform. I'd also eliminate any candidate from consideration who wants to truly defund the police.

I think it's plenty appropriate to eliminate any candidate from consideration who supports a coup attempt. If they were Democrats, I'd eliminate them too. Unfortunately, all the coup-plotters, participators, and supporters are Republicans. The party has to own it.

By the way, who's the last Democrat you supported because he was the better candidate since you're all about ignoring party? Are you voting for Bob?

[FordBronco1967]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

You don't understand the difference between discriminating against a racial minority and not voting for a political party? Hint: No one controls their race, ethnicity, or sexuality.

You mean the difference between discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin and discriminating against someone because of the letter that follows their name, right? Fundamentally speaking, there is no difference, because, in both cases, you would be discriminating against both sets of people based on an extraneous variable.

Policy is what matters. Not skin color, not party affiliation, not gender, not class, etc.