Comment by jimbob45 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimbob45 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem is that the grass is not often greener on the other side. In states like Oregon, Texas, and Florida, there very often is significant support to move to the opposing party because the incumbent governor is truly bad. However, the opposition fails to put up a compelling candidate and those states remain stuck with the fools they have.

Consider Florida. A lot of people really don't like DeSantis but the alternative the DNC of Florida put up was...a literal methhead[0]. Oregon has Kate Brown who has signed extremely unpopular legislation in Oregon but the opposition was...a guy who isn't even a Republican anymore[1]. Texas has Greg Abbott who is universally hated in Texas after the energy fiasco of 2021 but his opponent is a guy who failed to win a Senate election[2], let alone the governorship (have fun donating to that).

It's easy to look at the political parties of a state's elected representatives and make assumptions about the people there but it's very important to consider the actual people being elected before you draw conclusions about the politics of the citizens.

[0]https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-andrew-gill...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knute_Buehler

[2]https://www.shorturl.at/xEKZ3

> don't like DeSantis but the alternative the DNC of Florida put up was...a literal methhead

At worst an alleged methhead, which he denies.

> officers were called to a West Avenue hotel around 1 a.m. and found Gillum there with two other men, one of whom was being treated for a possible drug overdose. Gillum was too inebriated to speak with officers, though he was later reported in stable condition and with normal vital signs.

...

> "I was in Miami last night for a wedding celebration when first responders were called to assist one of my friends,” Gillum said in the written release. “While I had too much to drink, I want to be clear that I have never used methamphetamines."[0]

[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/13/andr...

Your mistake is understandable because the media ran with the Gillum-is-a-meth-fiend narrative.

> It's easy to look at the political parties of a state's elected representatives and make assumptions about the people there but it's very important to consider the actual people being elected before you draw conclusions about the politics of the citizens.

I didn't draw any conclusions, they said they were Republican in Missouri who disagreed with the Governor. I simply asked if that made them "re-think" their their affiliation.

That so many people assumed I was asking them to switch to Democrat is evidence of how dug in our society has become. It contains two big assumptions.

1. Re-assessing your affiliation based on political performance is the same as switching to another party

2. If you aren't a Republican, you must be a Democrat

I am an American as of 2 years ago.

The whole gov/system is by default 2 party system.

Some of the questions that you are asked during your citizenship interview is what are the two main parties.

Im not saying I like it. But it’s a fair assumption to make when literally all voters only consider the two parties.

There is a difference between voting for one of the two parties (althought there are obviously more parties) and choosing to affiliate yourself with a specific party. In the US, the largest political party is "Independent" [1] with 46% of the population identifying that way.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Interesting, Im not sure why that question was picked though.

You are given choices of “identifying” as Rep/Dem/Ind. Only two of them are real parties.

What does it mean to be independent then? Is it more like undecided?

Im not sure you can call that a political party.

> What does it mean to be independent then? Is it more like undecided?

I'm sure it means different things to different people. For me, it means that I don't follow any party's platform in lockstep. I try to judge each candidate and policy based on merits, not team affiliation and have voted for multiple parties over the years (Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green).

I was with you until your last example. You appear to be suggesting that people who've lost statewide elections should never run for a statewide position again? History is full of examples of great legislators who didn't win their first elections.

I think the famous one is Lincoln[0] and I agree that his perseverance is inspiring. Nevertheless, campaign funding correlates heavily with election success in the modern era and losers are naturally going to meet with skepticism that they will find success the second time around.

In this particular case, he's running for the exact same set of voters as before for a more prestigious office against a more popular candidate. His policies are less popular than in 2018 and he's done nothing to increase his notoriety in the last four years. This isn't to say he's not a good candidate but I find it reasonable to think that he may struggle for funding this time around more than last.

[0]https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/education/failu...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com