trying to understand party affiliation as personal identity

[TVRodriguez]

It sounds more like you identify as a pro-choice person than as a Democrat.    If the Democrats reversed their stance on pro-choice would you still identify as a Democrat?

I can never say never, but although it started as one-issue, there are enough other issues where I feel that the Republican party has failed to offer any substantive alternative that I can't see myself leaning right.  I refuse to disengage entirely, so I vote Democratic.  And with my apologies to those who choose to align with third parties, that seems pointless.

Not that I feel that Democratic politicians are somehow virtuous.  Far from it.  I think it's naive to believe any politician retains his or her virtues as they get more and more enmeshed in politics.  Of course some start out with fewer virtues, but still.

I strongly believe that it is extremely difficult for any politician not to become slimy (corrupt), whether or not they start out that way.  I believe that the best we can hope for is to try to accomplish some things for the overall good while getting the least slime on all of us.

For those WOT fans, it's always seemed to me like the slick of the Dark One's touch on saidin.  Unavoidable if you want to use the power of saidin, but there it is.

[Tyson]

Libertarians like to brag about how they have it ALL figured out, but then whine that they can't get anything done because no party represents them.  Then they either sullenly vote republican or simply refuse to play by not voting at all.  I love how people who refuse to vote always seem to feel so entitled to b!tch about how their voices are not heard. 

They aren't like vegans, because vegans are actually trying to change things.  Libertarians in generally are usually a bunch of complainypants that whine when the world simply doesn't snap into line after one of their "brilliant" diatribes.  I will say this though - vegans and libertarians are very similar in regard to how tedious it is to listen to them.  They seem to think they have "unique" ideas that you haven't already heard a thousand times before.  Yes I get it.  And no I just don't agree with you.  Deal.

Both parties are crap. On the one hand they try to make it seem like they're miles apart on everything, except all of the stuff that's never talked about because they're in lockstep agreement.

In most places it's almost meaningless to vote because the winner is already a foregone conclusion. If you live in any urban area it's pretty much guaranteed that a Democrat will win the race and if you live in a rural area it's pretty much guaranteed that a Republican will win the race. Wyoming will probably not elect a Democratic representative and Vermont will probably not elect a Republican one.

In the end, the best I can hope for is gridlock.

P.S. I'm one of those white male Libertarians, though with the twist that I'm Catholic and therefore disagree with many Libertarians on abortion. Mostly it's a moot point because there's no Libertarian in the race. I've met a few politicians personally and the only one's I really agreed with almost across the board had zero chance of ever winning and were at the local or state level where political party is not a constrictive as at the national level. There's a pretty conservative Democrat state senator here in NM that would probably be a Republican in most places. The state has pretty much been under single-party control for most of the last 100 years though so even conservatives have had to run as Democrats to have any chance of winning outside of some more rural areas.

Wow, I didn't think a Libertarian would come along so soon and demonstrate every point I was mocking above!

You should buy yourself a cookie on the way home, you deserve it!

Nah, I'd only deserve a cookie if he'd use the word "principle" at least once. 

[Michael in ABQ]

Libertarians like to brag about how they have it ALL figured out, but then whine that they can't get anything done because no party represents them.  Then they either sullenly vote republican or simply refuse to play by not voting at all.  I love how people who refuse to vote always seem to feel so entitled to b!tch about how their voices are not heard. 

They aren't like vegans, because vegans are actually trying to change things.  Libertarians in generally are usually a bunch of complainypants that whine when the world simply doesn't snap into line after one of their "brilliant" diatribes.  I will say this though - vegans and libertarians are very similar in regard to how tedious it is to listen to them.  They seem to think they have "unique" ideas that you haven't already heard a thousand times before.  Yes I get it.  And no I just don't agree with you.  Deal.

Both parties are crap. On the one hand they try to make it seem like they're miles apart on everything, except all of the stuff that's never talked about because they're in lockstep agreement.

In most places it's almost meaningless to vote because the winner is already a foregone conclusion. If you live in any urban area it's pretty much guaranteed that a Democrat will win the race and if you live in a rural area it's pretty much guaranteed that a Republican will win the race. Wyoming will probably not elect a Democratic representative and Vermont will probably not elect a Republican one.

In the end, the best I can hope for is gridlock.

P.S. I'm one of those white male Libertarians, though with the twist that I'm Catholic and therefore disagree with many Libertarians on abortion. Mostly it's a moot point because there's no Libertarian in the race. I've met a few politicians personally and the only one's I really agreed with almost across the board had zero chance of ever winning and were at the local or state level where political party is not a constrictive as at the national level. There's a pretty conservative Democrat state senator here in NM that would probably be a Republican in most places. The state has pretty much been under single-party control for most of the last 100 years though so even conservatives have had to run as Democrats to have any chance of winning outside of some more rural areas.

Wow, I didn't think a Libertarian would come along so soon and demonstrate every point I was mocking above!

I don't really understand Michael's claim that New Mexico has been under Democratic control for the last 100 years, either.  I mean, Steve Pearce (current congressman) is GOP, as is their current governor (Martinez). They even had a 6-term senator until recently.... and let's not forget that former Libertarian presidential nominee Johnson from NM started out in the GOP.
Granted I've never lived there, but from the outside NM has never seemed like solidly democratic territory.  As I recall in presidential ellections it went for Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bushes.

At the state level the house has had a Democratic majority since 1932 with Republicans gaining a slim majority for the 2015-2016 term. The senate has been majority Democrat for the same period with a single slim Republican majority or a couple of years in the 1980s. Democrats are 47% of the state with Republicans 31% (remainder independents and minor parties) We've had some Republican governors including Gary Johnson and the current Susana Martinez. There have been some Republican senators and representatives too but since I moved here a decade ago it's been pretty solidly Democrat. The district for the southern part of the state has always been Republican because it's mostly rural and includes the oil patch in the southeast which is more similar to Texas than the rest of the state. Mostly agriculture and oil and gas. The northern rural parts of the state are solidly Democratic though. Bust won by a slim margin in 2004 but prior to that from Clinton to present it's gone blue.

[Radagast]

I really dislike this recently growing tendency. I don't understand it. As an example, my mom and her neighbor are respectively a die-hard liberal and a die-hard Trumpist. They both live at the end of a low-density road with only twelve houses on it, are in their mid-60's, and retired from government work. Given their similarities, it is literally impossible for both of their ideologies to be best. But wow are they die-hard about them. They don't seem to notice all their double standards, and will totally flip-flop a large number of positions depending on who is in power.

I am largely a single issue voter: I vote for the candidate with the greatest proven track record of voting with the other party. I might also consider policies I support, moderates, voting against incumbents, and voting against the governing party. Sometimes I even vote libertarian or none of the above. But by-and-large, I vote for the candidate that has demonstrated the greatest non-partisanship.

[shenlong55]

I really dislike this recently growing tendency. I don't understand it. As an example, my mom and her neighbor are respectively a die-hard liberal and a die-hard Trumpist. They both live at the end of a low-density road with only twelve houses on it, are in their mid-60's, and retired from government work. Given their similarities, it is literally impossible for both of their ideologies to be best. But wow are they die-hard about them. They don't seem to notice all their double standards, and will totally flip-flop a large number of positions depending on who is in power.

I am largely a single issue voter: I vote for the candidate with the greatest proven track record of voting with the other party. I might also consider policies I support, moderates, voting against incumbents, and voting against the governing party. Sometimes I even vote libertarian or none of the above. But by-and-large, I vote for the candidate that has demonstrated the greatest non-partisanship.

I get the desire to be fair and balanced/impartial/non-partisan/whatever, but this seems like a horrible way to choose who to vote for.  I really dislike this recently growing tendency to take non-partisanship way too far.

[Just Joe]

DW and I voted in our town's primaries this week. One Democrat on the ticket. A dozen Republicans to choose from though.

[Davnasty]

I really dislike this recently growing tendency. I don't understand it. As an example, my mom and her neighbor are respectively a die-hard liberal and a die-hard Trumpist. They both live at the end of a low-density road with only twelve houses on it, are in their mid-60's, and retired from government work. Given their similarities, it is literally impossible for both of their ideologies to be best. But wow are they die-hard about them. They don't seem to notice all their double standards, and will totally flip-flop a large number of positions depending on who is in power.

I am largely a single issue voter: I vote for the candidate with the greatest proven track record of voting with the other party. I might also consider policies I support, moderates, voting against incumbents, and voting against the governing party. Sometimes I even vote libertarian or none of the above. But by-and-large, I vote for the candidate that has demonstrated the greatest non-partisanship.

I get the desire to be fair and balanced/impartial/non-partisan/whatever, but this seems like a horrible way to choose who to vote for.  I really dislike this recently growing tendency to take non-partisanship way too far.

I don't think this method is going to always get the best candidates but at least it would send a message of support to those willing to cross the aisle. If we're ever going to escape a two party system, maybe this could help in the long term? If someone is voting 3rd party simply on principle of protesting the two party system, is this a better strategy?

I think there are too many immediate concerns to vote this way personally but I will say that the only republicans I considered last time around were those that didn't give out cookie cutter republican party views on social issues that should be non-issues like bathroom bills. Unfortunately that eliminated 80+%.

[Radagast]

I really dislike this recently growing tendency. I don't understand it. As an example, my mom and her neighbor are respectively a die-hard liberal and a die-hard Trumpist. They both live at the end of a low-density road with only twelve houses on it, are in their mid-60's, and retired from government work. Given their similarities, it is literally impossible for both of their ideologies to be best. But wow are they die-hard about them. They don't seem to notice all their double standards, and will totally flip-flop a large number of positions depending on who is in power.

I am largely a single issue voter: I vote for the candidate with the greatest proven track record of voting with the other party. I might also consider policies I support, moderates, voting against incumbents, and voting against the governing party. Sometimes I even vote libertarian or none of the above. But by-and-large, I vote for the candidate that has demonstrated the greatest non-partisanship.

I get the desire to be fair and balanced/impartial/non-partisan/whatever, but this seems like a horrible way to choose who to vote for.  I really dislike this recently growing tendency to take non-partisanship way too far.

I'm sure you think I should vote for a party line list of things you care about :). In reality, I've realized that most hot national topics don't have that large an impact on my daily life. The big one is the health care debacle, but both parties seem to support a health care system that sucks and so they get no brownie points. I most prefer voting for republicans who cross the aisle on key issues because I generally prefer democratic positions on those (save the environment, civil liberties). But I also like democrats who vote with R's on, say, budget issues. Either way, non-partisanship is a key issue for me. Note I don't say bi-partisanship.

[shenlong55]

I really dislike this recently growing tendency. I don't understand it. As an example, my mom and her neighbor are respectively a die-hard liberal and a die-hard Trumpist. They both live at the end of a low-density road with only twelve houses on it, are in their mid-60's, and retired from government work. Given their similarities, it is literally impossible for both of their ideologies to be best. But wow are they die-hard about them. They don't seem to notice all their double standards, and will totally flip-flop a large number of positions depending on who is in power.

I am largely a single issue voter: I vote for the candidate with the greatest proven track record of voting with the other party. I might also consider policies I support, moderates, voting against incumbents, and voting against the governing party. Sometimes I even vote libertarian or none of the above. But by-and-large, I vote for the candidate that has demonstrated the greatest non-partisanship.

I get the desire to be fair and balanced/impartial/non-partisan/whatever, but this seems like a horrible way to choose who to vote for.  I really dislike this recently growing tendency to take non-partisanship way too far.

I'm sure you think I should vote for a party line list of things you care about :). In reality, I've realized that most hot national topics don't have that large an impact on my daily life. The big one is the health care debacle, but both parties seem to support a health care system that sucks and so they get no brownie points. I most prefer voting for republicans who cross the aisle on key issues because I generally prefer democratic positions on those (save the environment, civil liberties). But I also like democrats who vote with R's on, say, budget issues. Either way, non-partisanship is a key issue for me. Note I don't say bi-partisanship.

Nope.  I think you should vote for the politicians who care about the issues that you care about.  Non-partisanship can definitely be one of those issues, but I don't give politicians brownie points just for crossing the aisle.  What they are crossing the aisle for and how they do it is just as important.

[ChpBstrd]

People lack an assigned identity these days. We don't have tribes or clans, our families are not close, we live the same way as millions of others around us, and in our highly individualistic society many of us are not even on a team trying to accomplish anything together (no your department at work doesn't count).

So we buy our identities off the shelf through sports fandom, fashion labels, status symbols, and, yes, politics. Politics are a consumer product.

Political ideologies offer a comforting sense of belonging, energize people with a sense of purpose, resolve anxiety-provoking uncertainty and moral self-questioning, etc. All these product benefits can be yours for the low low price of conformity. May relieve symptoms of depression and existential angst.

Unfortunately, the most successful ideologies blame some demographic (minorities or "the 1%") for all their constituents' dissatisfactions with life. This is because the people most likely to buy one of these products are the type who have already failed to take accountability for themselves.

That is not an excuse to leave something as powerful as government in such hands. Vote every time!!!