Are the Bible Thumpers Losing Their Grip on Our Politics?

Status
Not open for further replies.
tekkychick said:
In California we went to the "top two" primary; that means the top two vote getters in a primary go on to the general election, not the top one of each party. Now I don't particularly like this - it's not good for third parties, and in counties which are largely one party or the other, you can end up with two people of the same party going to the general election.

This happened in my county - 2 dems, 2 repubs, 1 independent ran in the last primary for state representative. The two repubs were the top two vote getters; one of them was heavily Tea Party, the other was just conservative.

So in this case - the TP'ers didn't have their way. The TP candidate won the primary -but in the general election, enough of us held our noses and voted for the non-TP guy (since we didn't have a candidate in the race) that the TP candidate lost.

So I agree in most cases the evangelical minority or the TP minority can use the primary to make a candidate bow to them - in some cases, it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

So basically it's not a vote for; but instead a vote against.
Sounds like sour grapes, to me.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So basically it's not a vote for; but instead a vote against.
Sounds like sour grapes, to me.
Click to expand...

So? no offense, but I don't care what it sounds like to you. When I'm choosing my representative, if there are two candidates, and I don't really like either of them... I can not vote, or I can vote for the lesser of two evils. It would be very hard for me not to vote; I think voting is both a right and an obligation, and I think everyone should exercise it. I looked at the two available candidates, and chose the one I would prefer to have representing me. I assume that's why everyone - dem, repub, no party preference, etc - who voted for him chose him. Sour grapes? You're just looking for reasons to criticize.

As it turned out, the top two primary ended up benefiting dems in the state overall rather than repubs, even though it was a repub who suggested it. I still think it's a bad idea. Alas, once again, it turns out I am not the dictator-in-charge.
 
tekkychick said:
So? no offense, but I don't care what it sounds like to you. When I'm choosing my representative, if there are two candidates, and I don't really like either of them... I can not vote, or I can vote for the lesser of two evils. It would be very hard for me not to vote; I think voting is both a right and an obligation, and I think everyone should exercise it. I looked at the two available candidates, and chose the one I would prefer to have representing me. I assume that's why everyone - dem, repub, no party preference, etc - who voted for him chose him. Sour grapes? You're just looking for reasons to criticize.

As it turned out, the top two primary ended up benefiting dems in the state overall rather than repubs, even though it was a repub who suggested it. I still think it's a bad idea. Alas, once again, it turns out I am not the dictator-in-charge.
Click to expand...

Yeah - That must be why your previous statement contained the following:

tekkychick said:
...So in this case - the TP'ers didn't have their way. The TP candidate won the primary -but in the general election, enough of us held our noses and voted for the non-TP guy (since we didn't have a candidate in the race) that the TP candidate lost...
Click to expand...

Words do have meaning, no matter how the left tries to just throw them around.
 
USF, I don't give a damn. You want to call that sour grapes, go right ahead. There, do you feel better? Now have a glass of milk and toddle off to bed.

Now - back to the issue - in many states, the power that TP'ers and other far right groups such as evangelists and other religious groups can wield in the primaries will often pull a candidate to the right in order to avoid a challenge in the primary. In California, due to the top two primary, the far right groups might not have quite as much power.
 
tekkychick said:
USF, I don't give a damn. You want to call that sour grapes, go right ahead. There, do you feel better? Now have a glass of milk and toddle off to bed.

Now - back to the issue - in many states, the power that TP'ers and other far right groups such as evangelists and other religious groups can wield in the primaries will often pull a candidate to the right in order to avoid a challenge in the primary. In California, due to the top two primary, the far right groups might not have quite as much power.
Click to expand...

LOL. Seems like USF has met his match in tekky.

Nice smackdown, gf!
 
The problem with the Religious right is they think they have the divine right to tell everyone else how to live their lives,and dont know when its none of their business how others live their lives.
 
tekkychick said:
USF, I don't give a damn. You want to call that sour grapes, go right ahead. There, do you feel better? Now have a glass of milk and toddle off to bed.

Now - back to the issue - in many states, the power that TP'ers and other far right groups such as evangelists and other religious groups can wield in the primaries will often pull a candidate to the right in order to avoid a challenge in the primary. In California, due to the top two primary, the far right groups might not have quite as much power.
Click to expand...

Nice to see that you have admitted that you want to win, no matter what the cost is.
At least you're being honest about your sour grapes, as opposed to other's on the left.
 
tekkychick said:
In California we went to the "top two" primary; that means the top two vote getters in a primary go on to the general election, not the top one of each party. Now I don't particularly like this - it's not good for third parties, and in counties which are largely one party or the other, you can end up with two people of the same party going to the general election.

This happened in my county - 2 dems, 2 repubs, 1 independent ran in the last primary for state representative. The two repubs were the top two vote getters; one of them was heavily Tea Party, the other was just conservative.

So in this case - the TP'ers didn't have their way. The TP candidate won the primary -but in the general election, enough of us held our noses and voted for the non-TP guy (since we didn't have a candidate in the race) that the TP candidate lost.

So I agree in most cases the evangelical minority or the TP minority can use the primary to make a candidate bow to them - in some cases, it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

it would seem to me that if the top two candidates in your district were Republicans it didn't matter much who you few liberals held your nose at.......
 
The wackey Religious right is changing, modernizing. I saw a poll where a majority of self proclaimed Evangelical Christians are in support of legalized Same sex marriage.
 
Jarod said:
The wackey Religious right is changing, modernizing. I saw a poll where a majority of self proclaimed Evangelical Christians are in support of legalized Same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

and then there are these people -

http://equalityontrial.com/2013/06/24/conservative-activists-issue-threat-to-supreme-court-regarding-marriage-equality/

A collection of over 200 conservative activists have released a statement saying they will ignore any pro-marriage equality ruling out of the Supreme Court, Think Progress reported late last week. Calling itself the Freedom Federation, the group includes well-known anti-LGBT activists such as Tony Perkins and major conservative figures such as Mike Huckabee.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top