I've been doing quite a bit of thinking regarding my political affiliation. While I know where I stand on the major issues, political candidates often may not be 100% aligned with my beliefs. And given there are multiple factions within the Republican party (not a bad thing, per se), there's often a challenge coalescing behind one candidate.
Here in Minnesota, we have a GOP state convention each election year where delegates elected by fellow activists at the local level go to endorse a candidate for statewide office (US Senator, governor, etc.). The candidate who receives 60% of the delegates' support is the one who is deemed "endorsed." While the other candidates who failed to be endorsed have the option of going to a primary election to decide the nominee, most MN GOP candidates abide by the party nod.
Sadly, there's rarely unification when it comes to election time, which is a deadly thing in a left-of-center state like Minnesota. The GOP has a tough enough time winning statewide elections here even when the party activists are unified. But when there are certain factions who stay home on election day because their preferred candidate didn't get the nod, it's pretty much "GAME OVER" for Republicans statewide.
Which brings me to the reassessment of my foray in politics.
Oh, I'm going to stay involved. But I have an idea of how I should approach my activism. I'll support a candidate who is utterly unelectable, even though the most electable conservative in a given race is someone with whom I'm aligned on 95-98% of the issues. But that's still short of perfect, so screw it. Anyhow, one of two things will happen. First, the unelectable conservative will win the nomination but go on and get trounced in the general election by the Democrat. No problem though, as I will assuage my guilt by saying I'd rather lose on "principle" than win with someone who doesn't represent me 100%. The other scenario is the electable conservative will be the nominee. However, me and my new faction will constantly undermine that candidacy and then not turn out on election day because said candidate is not our guy/gal. As a result, the Democrat will prevail in the general. But, again, that's OK since there's no difference between a Democrat (someone with whom I agree maybe 20-25%) and the 98% conservative candidate. Once again, I am guilt free about this country continuing down the "progressive" path.
Isn't this a genius strategy? The best part of it is me and my fellow members of the "all or nothing" faction can be absolved of responsibility for any and all elections results.
Wait. What?!?! You mean to tell me some other group has the market cornered on that strategy? {*sigh*} Yet another multi-million dollar idea snapped up.
------------------------------------------
1 comment:
Actually, the average difference between Democrats and Republicans is between 60 and 80 percentage points, depending on which group you look at, and current year or lifetime averages. In almost EVERY case, the "worst Republican" is better than the "best Democrat," the divide is that wide. So, if you are a conservative, you have a choice between a conservative candidate and a liberal one. Even a robot knows that you're not supposed to allow a human being to "come to harm, through action or inaction."
Post a Comment