There were two exceptions when I voted for the nominees in the TN primaries and the general elections. These were in 1984 when President Reagan; who I voted the first time for in the general election in 1980 and then in the primaries in 1984 and in the general election in 1984.
The other one was George W. Bush in the 2000 general election and again in the 2004 TN primary and in the general election.
I have asked quite a few in here if they have always voted for the Republican nominee. Their non answer told me all I needed to know.
I have always wound up voting for the republican nominee too, but I didn’t do it out of party loyalty because they were the republican nominee, but rather because in each case I was convinced the republican would make a far better POTUS than the democrat alternative.
Party loyalty means very little to me - I go by what I think they’ll do in office vs what I think their opponent will do. Period.
As for down ticket elections, on the other hand, I admit I have been part of the pro GOP rah rah rah - we need a majority in the house, the senate, governors, etc.. and I’ve voted straight republican mostly for that reason.
But this last year has taught me the party thing is a sham - it gives a false sense of “checks and balances” in government. The checks and balances were never meant to be the parties opposing each other, or balance between a republican house vs a democrat senate, or balance between a democrat congress vs a republican White House. It was meant to be opposing ideas getting a fair hearing, the opposing perspectives of states and localities vs the central government getting fair representation, and the balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
Somewhere in there was the founders’ assumption (turned out to be false) that a free press (along with 1st and 2nd amendments) would represent the voice of the people as a check of last resort against the power of government as a whole.
Nowhere in the founding documents is there an expectation that opposing political parties should be relied on to provide balance or anything else to the system. I am afraid the opposing political party mentality has been foisted on us after the fact to give a false sense of healthy debate, and competing ideas, checks and balances.
All the party mentality has done is distract us from the radical leftward drift in all three branches, with the corrupted press leading the way.
Donald Trump got my attention last year in the first debate when he said he wasn’t ready to pledge anything to the GOP - that he’d have to wait and see how the GOP treated his candidacy. I think that was spot on, and signaled that whatever support he got from the people, was going to remain with the people, and not be sold out to a political party. Later, when he was clear front runner, he ironically signed the pledge to support the nominee (himself), but that was just a way to drive home the point that it was never about pledging party loyalty, it was about the will of the people.
Trump has risen within the Republican Party but first and foremost he should be the champion of ideas, not a party.
I know it seems important to have Republican control of the house and senate so that president elect Trump can get things done, once in office. But hasn’t recent history shown us that is a false premise? Republicans have shown that they can control both houses of congress, the White House, control appointment of judges, etc.. and yet do zilch for conservatism, and do zilch to oppose leftism.
It took me a long time to realize it, but I’m totally done caring about who is a Republican and who is not.
Go Trump!!